Kirk D. Williams v. Jack in the Box, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 8, 2026
• Docket: 2:25-cv-02980
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KIRK D. WILLIAMS, Case No. 2:25-cv-02980-DC-CSK 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO PROCEED 14 JACK IN THE BOX, et al., IFP 15 Defendants. (ECF No. 2) 16 17 Plaintiff Kirk D. Williams is representing himself in this action and seeks leave to 18 proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.1 (ECF No. 2.) For the 19 reasons stated below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request to proceed IFP without 20 prejudice. 21 I. LEGAL STANDARDS 22 All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in any district court of the 23 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee. See 24 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a party's failure to pay the filing fee 25 only if the party is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 26 § 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); Rodriguez v. 27 1 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R. 28 Civ. P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c). 1 Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). To qualify to proceed in forma pauperis, the 2 litigant must submit an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets they possess. 3 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The affidavit must also state that the person is unable to pay the 4 fees or give security. Id. The affidavit must provide “sufficient details concerning [the 5 applicant’s] income, assets, and expenditures[.]” Williams v. Cnty. of Ventura, 443 F. 6 App’x 232, 233 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th 7 Cir. 1981) (an affidavit claiming poverty in support of a motion made under 8 28 U.S.C. § 1915 must state the relevant facts “with some particularity, definiteness, and 9 certainty”). 10 II. DISCUSSION 11 In its current form, Plaintiff’s IFP application is incomplete. See ECF No. 2. 12 Plaintiff does not respond to questions regarding any additional income sources, his 13 employment history, his spouse’s employment history (if applicable), or how much 14 money he has in bank accounts or in any other financial institution. Id. at 1-2. Therefore, 15 Plaintiff's IFP application lacks sufficient detail to establish that he is entitled to prosecute 16 this case without paying the required fees. See Williams, 443 F. App’x at 233; see also 17 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Plaintiff will be provided an opportunity to file an amended IFP 18 application. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is 19 DENIED without prejudice to its renewal. Plaintiff is warned that failure to pay the filing 20 fee or submit a complete IFP application with sufficient detail by the prescribed deadline 21 may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 22 III. CONCLUSION 23 In accordance with the above, IT IS ORDERED that: 24 1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is DENIED 25 without prejudice; and 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 2. Plaintiff must pay the filing fee or file a complete and signed application to 2 proceed IFP within thirty (30) days from the date of this order. 3 4 Dated: January 7, 2026 C iy S \U 5 GHI 500 KIM UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 4, will2980.25 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28