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

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Lisa Pickett, Case No. 2:26-cv-01455-JAD-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 Order v. 8 HRU/Roadrunner Transportation Systems, et 9 al.,

10 Defendants.

11 12 Pro se Plaintiff Lisa Pickett has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (which 13 means, to proceed without paying the filing fee). (ECF No. 1). However, Plaintiff’s application 14 is missing certain information. The Court thus denies Plaintiff’s application without prejudice. 15 I. Discussion. 16 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a plaintiff may bring a civil action “without prepayment of 17 fees or security therefor” if the plaintiff submits a financial affidavit that demonstrates the 18 plaintiff “is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” The Ninth Circuit has recognized 19 that “there is no formula set forth by statute, regulation, or case law to determine when someone 20 is poor enough to earn [in forma pauperis] status.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1235 21 (9th Cir. 2015). An applicant need not be destitute to qualify for a waiver of costs and fees, but 22 he must demonstrate that because of his poverty he cannot pay those costs and still provide 23 himself with the necessities of life. Adkins v. E.I DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 24 (1948). 25 The applicant’s affidavit must state the facts regarding the individual’s poverty “with 26 some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 27 (9th Cir. 1981) (citation omitted). If an individual is unable or unwilling to verify his or her 1 status and to deny a request to proceed in forma pauperis. See, e.g., Marin v. Hahn, 271 2 Fed.Appx. 578 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by 3 denying the plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis because he “failed to verify his 4 poverty adequately”). “Such affidavit must include a complete statement of the plaintiff’s 5 personal assets.” Harper v. San Diego City Admin. Bldg., No. 16-cv-00768 AJB (BLM), 2016 6 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192145, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 9, 2016). Misrepresentation of assets is sufficient 7 grounds for denying an in forma pauperis application. Cf. Kennedy v. Huibregtse, 831 F.3d 441, 8 443-44 (7th Cir. 2016) (affirming dismissal with prejudice after litigant misrepresented assets on 9 in forma pauperis application). 10 As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff has neglected to sign the affidavit in support of her 11 application on page one. Next, Plaintiff has left multiple portions of question 1 blank without 12 explaining whether or not they apply to her. Plaintiff has failed to complete question 2 because 13 she leaves the portion requiring her to list gross monthly pay blank. 14 Plaintiff also claims to have no money in a bank account or cash in response to question 4, 15 to own no assets in response to question 5, and to only pay for food each month in response to 16 question 8. On the docket, Plaintiff lists an address. Public records reveal that the address is 17 within an apartment complex. But Plaintiff does not claim to pay rent, utilities, or any other 18 expenses other than food each month. Plaintiff also provides no explanation about how she lives 19 given her claims to have no future income, no money, and no bills other than food. She simply 20 states, “wrongfully terminated from my job – going through hardships.” 21 Given these issues, the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff qualifies for in forma 22 pauperis status. The Court will give Plaintiff one opportunity to file a complete in forma 23 pauperis application. The Court further orders that Plaintiff may not respond with a zero or “not 24 applicable” in response to any question without providing an explanation for each of the 25 questions. Plaintiff also may not leave any questions blank. Plaintiff must describe each source 26 of money that she receives, state the amount she received, and what she expects to receive in the 27 future. 1 The Court denies Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application without prejudice. The Court 2 gives Plaintiff 30 days to file an updated application. Plaintiff must fully answer all applicable 3 questions and check all applicable boxes. Plaintiff may alternatively pay the filing fee in full. 4 5 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 6 pauperis (ECF No. 1) is denied without prejudice. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff has until June 15, 2026, to file an updated 8 application to proceed in forma pauperis as specified in this order or pay the filing fee. Failure to 9 timely comply with this order may result in a recommendation to the district judge that this case 10 be dismissed. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to send Plaintiff 12 a copy of this order and of the Long Form application to proceed in forma pauperis and its 13 instructions.1 14 15 DATED: May 14, 2026, 16 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 17 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

27 1 This form and its instructions can also be found at https://www.nvd.uscourts.gov/court-