Matthew Robert Elmore v. United States Internal Revenue Service

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: December 1, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-03340
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Matthew Robert ELMORE, Case No.: 25-cv-3340-AGS-KSC

4 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO Plaintiff, 5 PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS vs. (ECF 2) AND DISMISSING 6 COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO

7 AMEND UNITED STATES INTERNAL REVENUE 8 SERVICE, 9 Defendant. 10 11 Plaintiff Matthew Elmore, proceeding without an attorney, seeks to waive the filing 12 fee for his lawsuit against the IRS. But he has not justified waiving the filing fee, and his 13 complaint doesn’t pass mandatory screening. 14 MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 15 Parties instituting a civil action in a federal district court must typically pay filing 16 fees of $405. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) ($350 filing fee); District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, 17 § 14 (effective Dec. 1, 2023) ($55 administrative fee). But if granted the right to proceed 18 in forma pauperis, a plaintiff can proceed without prepaying those fees. Rodriguez v. Cook, 19 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). Elmore claims he has an average monthly income of 20 “$0” from various public-benefit programs. (ECF 2, at 1–2.) After that, though, he left 21 blank all the other information called for by the Court’s IFP form. (See id. at 2–5.) This 22 includes any information on assets, cash on hand, or monthly liabilities. (Id.) Even though 23 plaintiff “need not be completely destitute to proceed IFP,” see Blount v. Saul, No. 21-CV- 24 0679-BLM, 2021 WL 1561453, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2021), a court may deny IFP 25 when an applicant is “unable, or unwilling, to verify their poverty,” United States v. 26 McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981). The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is 27 denied. 28 1 SCREENING 2 In addition, when reviewing an IFP motion, the court must screen the complaint and 3 dismiss it if it—among other things—“fails to state a claim.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 4 Although the requirement is not onerous, Elmore’s complaint does not come close to 5 stating a claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (requiring a “short and plain statement of the 6 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 7 544, 555 (2007) (noting that Rule 8’s purpose is to “give the defendant fair notice of what 8 the claim is and the grounds upon which it rest” (cleaned up)). The complaint does not set 9 out a legal basis for his claim against the IRS, nor any facts to support it. In fact, it is almost 10 completely devoid of content. (See generally ECF 1.) Elmore’s complaint is a seven-page, 11 pre-printed form that has been left entirely blank, except for Elmore’s name, signature, and 12 contact information; the defendant’s identity (“Internal Revenue Service”) and address 13 (“Russia”); and an “X” in the box for “Federal Question,” in response to the question, 14 “What is the basis for federal court jurisdiction? (check all that apply).” (ECF 1, at 1–3, 7.) 15 Because this (mostly) blank form contains no facts about Elmore’s claim, let alone 16 enough facts to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,” the complaint must be 17 dismissed. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 18 Given Elmore’s unrepresented status, the Court grants him leave to file an updated 19 IFP petition and amend his complaint. After all, a “district court should not dismiss a pro se 20 complaint without leave to amend unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the 21 complaint could not be cured by amendment.” Rosati v. Igbinoso, 791 F.3d 1037, 1039 22 (9th Cir. 2015) (cleaned up). 23 CONCLUSION 24 Thus, the Court orders as follows: 25 1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. 26 2. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. 27 3. By January 16, 2026, plaintiff must pay the full filing fee or file any updated 28 1 || IFP petition. Failure to do so will result in a final dismissal. By that same date, plaintiff 2 || must also file any amended complaint. The amended complaint must be complete by itself 3 || without reference to any previous version of his pleading; defendants not named and any 4 claims not re-alleged in the amended complaint will be considered waived. If Elmore fails 5 timely amend, the Court will enter a final Order dismissing this case. 6 Dated: December 1, 2025

g Hon. rew G. Schopler 6 United States District Judge

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28