Lisa Pickett v. HRU/Roadrunner Transportation Systems, et al.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * * Lisa Pickett, Case No. 2:26-cv-01455-JAD-DJA Plaintiff, Order v. HRU/Roadrunner Transportation Systems, et al.,

Defendants.

Pro se Plaintiff Lisa Pickett has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (which means, to proceed without paying the filing fee). (ECF No. 1). However, Plaintiff’s application is missing certain information. The Court thus denies Plaintiff’s application without prejudice. I. Discussion. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a plaintiff may bring a civil action “without prepayment of fees or security therefor” if the plaintiff submits a financial affidavit that demonstrates the plaintiff “is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” The Ninth Circuit has recognized that “there is no formula set forth by statute, regulation, or case law to determine when someone is poor enough to earn [in forma pauperis] status.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1235 (9th Cir. 2015). An applicant need not be destitute to qualify for a waiver of costs and fees, but he must demonstrate that because of his poverty he cannot pay those costs and still provide himself with the necessities of life. Adkins v. E.I DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). The applicant’s affidavit must state the facts regarding the individual’s poverty “with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) (citation omitted). If an individual is unable or unwilling to verify his or her status and to deny a request to proceed in forma pauperis. See, e.g., Marin v. Hahn, 271 Fed.Appx. 578 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis because he “failed to verify his poverty adequately”). “Such affidavit must include a complete statement of the plaintiff’s personal assets.” Harper v. San Diego City Admin. Bldg., No. 16-cv-00768 AJB (BLM), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192145, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 9, 2016). Misrepresentation of assets is sufficient grounds for denying an in forma pauperis application. Cf. Kennedy v. Huibregtse, 831 F.3d 441, 443-44 (7th Cir. 2016) (affirming dismissal with prejudice after litigant misrepresented assets on in forma pauperis application). As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff has neglected to sign the affidavit in support of her application on page one. Next, Plaintiff has left multiple portions of question 1 blank without explaining whether or not they apply to her. Plaintiff has failed to complete question 2 because she leaves the portion requiring her to list gross monthly pay blank. Plaintiff also claims to have no money in a bank account or cash in response to question 4, to own no assets in response to question 5, and to only pay for food each month in response to question 8. On the docket, Plaintiff lists an address. Public records reveal that the address is within an apartment complex. But Plaintiff does not claim to pay rent, utilities, or any other expenses other than food each month. Plaintiff also provides no explanation about how she lives given her claims to have no future income, no money, and no bills other than food. She simply states, “wrongfully terminated from my job – going through hardships.” Given these issues, the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff qualifies for in forma pauperis status. The Court will give Plaintiff one opportunity to file a complete in forma pauperis application. The Court further orders that Plaintiff may not respond with a zero or “not applicable” in response to any question without providing an explanation for each of the questions. Plaintiff also may not leave any questions blank. Plaintiff must describe each source of money that she receives, state the amount she received, and what she expects to receive in the future. The Court denies Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application without prejudice. The Court gives Plaintiff 30 days to file an updated application. Plaintiff must fully answer all applicable questions and check all applicable boxes. Plaintiff may alternatively pay the filing fee in full. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) is denied without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff has until June 15, 2026, to file an updated application to proceed in forma pauperis as specified in this order or pay the filing fee. Failure to timely comply with this order may result in a recommendation to the district judge that this case be dismissed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to send Plaintiff a copy of this order and of the Long Form application to proceed in forma pauperis and its instructions.1 DATED: May 14, 2026, DANIEL J. ALBREGTS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1 This form and its instructions can also be found at https://www.nvd.uscourts.gov/court-