Morgan v. Federal Express Corporation

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Jacob Morgan, Case No. 2:25-cv-00308-RFB-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 Order v. and 8 Order to Show Cause Federal Express Corporation, 9 Defendant. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Jacob Morgan has filed a late application to proceed in forma pauperis 12 (which means, to proceed without paying the filing fee). (ECF No. 6). On March 25, 2025, the 13 Court noted that Plaintiff had not provided sufficient information on his application to proceed in 14 forma pauperis and so denied the application. (ECF No. 4). The Court then gave Plaintiff until 15 April 24, 2025, to file an updated application, explaining that “[f]ailure to timely comply with this 16 order may result in a recommendation to the district judge that this case be dismissed.” (Id.). 17 Now, nearly four months later, Plaintiff has filed a renewed application to proceed in 18 forma pauperis. (ECF No. 6). But he has not moved to extend the Court’s deadline for him to 19 file this renewed application. And he has not provided any explanation about why his application 20 is late. Additionally, even if the Court were to consider Plaintiff’s application, it still contains 21 contradictory information. So, the Court denies Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 22 pauperis without prejudice and will give Plaintiff one more opportunity to file one. The Court 23 will also order Plaintiff to show cause why he missed the Court’s prior deadline to file an 24 application. 25 I. In forma pauperis application. 26 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a plaintiff may bring a civil action “without prepayment of 27 fees or security therefor” if the plaintiff submits a financial affidavit that demonstrates the 1 that “there is no formula set forth by statute, regulation, or case law to determine when someone 2 is poor enough to earn [in forma pauperis] status.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1235 3 (9th Cir. 2015). An applicant need not be destitute to qualify for a waiver of costs and fees, but 4 he must demonstrate that because of his poverty he cannot pay those costs and still provide 5 himself with the necessities of life. Adkins v. E.I DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 6 (1948). 7 The applicant’s affidavit must state the facts regarding the individual’s poverty “with 8 some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 9 (9th Cir. 1981) (citation omitted). If an individual is unable or unwilling to verify his or her 10 poverty, district courts have the discretion to make a factual inquiry into a plaintiff’s financial 11 status and to deny a request to proceed in forma pauperis. See, e.g., Marin v. Hahn, 271 12 Fed.Appx. 578 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by 13 denying the plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis because he “failed to verify his 14 poverty adequately”). “Such affidavit must include a complete statement of the plaintiff’s 15 personal assets.” Harper v. San Diego City Admin. Bldg., No. 16-cv-00768 AJB (BLM), 2016 16 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192145, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 9, 2016). Misrepresentation of assets is sufficient 17 grounds for denying an in forma pauperis application. Cf. Kennedy v. Huibregtse, 831 F.3d 441, 18 443-44 (7th Cir. 2016) (affirming dismissal with prejudice after litigant misrepresented assets on 19 in forma pauperis application). 20 Here, Plaintiff’s application is incomplete. In response to question two, which asks for 21 Plaintiff to identify his employer and how much he makes from employment and other sources, 22 Plaintiff fails to identify his employer. This is despite the fact that he claims to make $5,863.31 23 weekly in gross pay or wages. 24 Plaintiff also indicates that his take home wages are $8.75 per week. But he provides no 25 indication on his application why he makes such a high amount per week but only takes home 26 $8.75. Plaintiff’s response to question six, which asks for monthly expenses, does not answer this 27 question because Plaintiff reports paying about $413.40 in monthly expenses. 1 Finally, in response to question seven, Plaintiff lists four individuals who are dependent 2 upon him for support. But Plaintiff does not provide his relationship with each person. Nor does 3 he indicate how much he contributes to their support. 4 The Court will give Plaintiff one more opportunity to file a complete in forma pauperis 5 application. The Court further orders that Plaintiff may not respond with a zero or “not 6 applicable” in response to any question without providing an explanation for each of the 7 questions. Plaintiff also may not leave any questions blank. Plaintiff must correct the issues 8 outlined above. 9 The Court denies Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application without prejudice. The Court 10 gives Plaintiff 30 days to file an updated application. Plaintiff must fully answer all applicable 11 questions and check all applicable boxes. Plaintiff may alternatively pay the filing fee in full. 12 Since the Court denies Plaintiff’s application, it does not screen the complaint at this time. 13 II. Order to show cause. 14 The Court will also require Plaintiff to show cause why he missed the Court’s April 24, 15 2025, deadline to file his renewed application to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff must 16 respond to this order on or before September 24, 2025. In that response, Plaintiff must explain 17 why he missed the Court’s deadline. 18 19 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 20 pauperis (ECF No. 6) is denied without prejudice. 21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff has until September 24, 2025, to file an 22 updated application to proceed in forma pauperis as specified in this order or pay the filing fee. 23 Failure to timely comply with this order may result in a recommendation to the district judge that 24 this case be dismissed. 25 26 /// 27 /// 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to send Plaintiff 2 a copy of this order and of the Short Form application to proceed in forma pauperis and its 3 instructions.1 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff must file a response to this order on or 5 before September 24, 2025, and show cause why he missed the Court’s April 24, 2024, deadline 6 for him to file his renewed application to proceed in forma pauperis. 7 8 DATED: August 25, 2025 9 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 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-