Mary Anne Hubbard v. The Moore Law Group

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Mary Anne Hubbard, Case No. 2:26-cv-01418-JAD-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 Order v. 8 The Moore Law Group, 9 Defendant. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Mary Anne Hubbard filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. 12 (ECF No. 1). However, Plaintiff’s application is missing certain information. The Court thus 13 denies Plaintiff’s application without prejudice. 14 I. Discussion. 15 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a plaintiff may bring a civil action “without prepayment of 16 fees or security therefor” if the plaintiff submits a financial affidavit that demonstrates the 17 plaintiff “is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” The Ninth Circuit has recognized 18 that “there is no formula set forth by statute, regulation, or case law to determine when someone 19 is poor enough to earn [in forma pauperis] status.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1235 20 (9th Cir. 2015). An applicant need not be destitute to qualify for a waiver of costs and fees, but 21 he must demonstrate that because of his poverty he cannot pay those costs and still provide 22 himself with the necessities of life. Adkins v. E.I DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 23 (1948). 24 The applicant’s affidavit must state the facts regarding the individual’s poverty “with 25 some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 26 (9th Cir. 1981) (citation omitted). If an individual is unable or unwilling to verify his or her 27 poverty, district courts have the discretion to make a factual inquiry into a plaintiff’s financial 1 Fed.Appx. 578 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by 2 denying the plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis because he “failed to verify his 3 poverty adequately”). “Such affidavit must include a complete statement of the plaintiff’s 4 personal assets.” Harper v. San Diego City Admin. Bldg., No. 16-cv-00768 AJB (BLM), 2016 5 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192145, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 9, 2016). Misrepresentation of assets is sufficient 6 grounds for denying an in forma pauperis application. Cf. Kennedy v. Huibregtse, 831 F.3d 441, 7 443-44 (7th Cir. 2016) (affirming dismissal with prejudice after litigant misrepresented assets on 8 in forma pauperis application). 9 Plaintiff’s application is incomplete. In response to question 2, Plaintiff claims to make 10 $1,008 in gross pay or wages per month and to take home $850 of that monthly. But Plaintiff 11 does not list her employer’s name and address in response to question 2. In response to question 12 3, Plaintiff claims to have made money from a business, profession, or other self-employment in 13 the past 12 months. But she does not describe how much she has received in the past twelve 14 months as required by that question. She claims that the money she receives fluctuates, which the 15 Court appreciates can make it difficult to calculate. But Plaintiff must list, to the best of her 16 ability, the amount she received and what she expects to receive in the future. 17 In response to question 5, which asks Plaintiff to list any items of value, Plaintiff writes 18 “N/A.” Plaintiff also writes “N/A” in response to question 6, which asks if she has any regular 19 monthly expenses. Not only is it unlikely that Plaintiff has no items of value and has no regular 20 monthly expenses, Plaintiff’s response to question 6 directly contradicts her response to question 21 8. Question 8 asks Plaintiff to list any debts or financial obligations. Plaintiff responds, “Room 22 mate $730 rent,” apparently indicating that she pays her roommate rent. But, to the extent that 23 Plaintiff pays rent monthly, she must include that in response to question 6 as a monthly expense 24 rather than in response to question 8 as a debt. Alternatively she must provide further explanation 25 about why her rent payment is properly a debt and not a monthly expense. Additionally, on the 26 docket, Plaintiff lists a P.O. Box. But she does not list any payments for use of this P.O. Box in 27 response to question 6. 1 Given these issues, the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff qualifies for in forma 2 pauperis status. The Court will give Plaintiff one opportunity to file a complete in forma 3 pauperis application on this Court’s Long Form application. The Court further orders that 4 Plaintiff may not respond with a zero or “not applicable” in response to any question without 5 providing an explanation for each of the questions. Plaintiff also may not leave any questions 6 blank. Plaintiff must describe each source of money that she receives, state the amount she 7 received, and what she expects to receive in the future. 8 The Court denies Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application without prejudice. The Court 9 gives Plaintiff 30 days to file an updated application. Plaintiff must fully answer all applicable 10 questions and check all applicable boxes. Plaintiff may alternatively pay the filing fee in full. 11 Since the Court denies Plaintiff’s application, it does not screen the complaint at this time. 12 13 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 14 pauperis (ECF No. 1) is denied without prejudice. 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff has until June 8, 2026, to file an updated 16 application to proceed in forma pauperis as specified in this order or pay the filing fee. Failure to 17 timely comply with this order may result in a recommendation to the district judge that this case 18 be dismissed. 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to send Plaintiff 20 a copy of this order and of the Long Form application to proceed in forma pauperis and its 21 instructions.1 22 23 DATED: May 8, 2026, 24 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26

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