Nathan Sanford v. Christopher Joseph, et al.
This text of Nathan Sanford v. Christopher Joseph, et al. (Nathan Sanford v. Christopher Joseph, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 NATHAN SANFORD, Case No.: 3:25-cv-00702-MMD-CSD
4 Plaintiff Order
5 v. Re: ECF No. 1
6 CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH, et al.,
7 Defendants
8 9 Plaintiff, who is an inmate in the custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections 10 (NDOC), has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) (ECF No. 1). 11 A person may be granted permission to proceed IFP if the person “submits an affidavit 12 that includes a statement of all assets such [person] possesses [and] that the person is unable to 13 pay such fees or give security therefor. Such affidavit shall state the nature of the action, defense 14 or appeal and affiant’s belief that the person is entitled to redress.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). 15 The Local Rules of Practice for the District of Nevada provide: “Any person who is 16 unable to prepay the fees in a civil case may apply to the court for authority to proceed [IFP]. 17 The application must be made on the form provided by the court and must include a financial 18 affidavit disclosing the applicant’s income, assets, expenses, and liabilities.” LSR 1-1. 19 “[T]he supporting affidavits [must] state the facts as to [the] affiant’s poverty with some 20 particularity, definiteness and certainty.” U.S. v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) 21 (quotation marks and citation omitted). A litigant need not “be absolutely destitute to enjoy the 22 benefits of the statute.” Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). 23 1 An inmate submitting an application to proceed IFP must also “submit a certificate from 2 the institution certifying the amount of funds currently held in the applicant’s trust account at the 3 institution and the net deposits in the applicant’s account for the six months prior to the date of 4 submission of the application.” LSR 1-2; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). If the inmate has been
5 at the institution for less than six months, “the certificate must show the account’s activity for 6 this shortened period.” LSR 1-2. 7 If a prisoner brings a civil action IFP, the prisoner is still required to pay the full amount 8 of the filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). The court will assess and collect (when funds exist) an 9 initial partial filing fee that is calculated as 20 percent of the greater of the average monthly 10 deposits or the average monthly balance for the six-month period immediately preceding the 11 filing of the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)(A)-(B). After the initial partial filing fee is paid, 12 the prisoner is required to make monthly payments equal to 20 percent of the preceding month’s 13 income credited to the prisoner’s account. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The agency that has custody 14 of the prisoner will forward payments from the prisoner’s account to the court clerk each time
15 the account exceeds $10 until the filing fees are paid. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). 16 Plaintiff’s financial certificate and certified account statement are dated March 3, 2025, 17 nearly nine months before the filing of his IFP application. This does not comply with the 18 requirement that he submit a financial certificate and trust account statement for the six months 19 preceding the filing of the application. The application will therefore be denied without prejudice 20 to re-filing on the court’s current application form for inmates in NDOC custody. Once Plaintiff 21 has submitted a properly completed application, the court will be able to order NDOC to file 22 Plaintiff’s inmate trust fund account statement directly with the court. 23 1 CONCLUSION 2 Accordingly, Plaintiff's IFP application (ECF No. 1) is DENIED WITHOUT 3] PREJUDICE. 4 The Clerk shall SEND Plaintiff a copy of the application to proceed in forma pauperis by an inmate in NDOC custody and the instructions for same.! Plaintiff has 30 days from the date 6|| of this Order to either file a completed IFP application or pay the full $405 filing fee. The 7|| application must be fully completed, including pages 1-3 of the court’s approved form, and 8|| properly signed by Plaintiff on page 3. 9 Once Plaintiff has filed his completed IFP application or paid the filing fee, the court will screen the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, or both. Both 11||require dismissal of a complaint, or any portion thereof, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to 12]| state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who immune from such relief. 14 If the complaint is dismissed on screening, there will be no refund of the filing fee, and inmate proceeding IFP is still required to pay the $350 filing fee over time. 16 If Plaintiff fails to timely file a completed IFP application and financial certificate or pay 17]| the filing fee, the court will recommend dismissal of this action without prejudice. 18), IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 6, 2026 20 CY Craig S. Denney > 21 United States Magistrate Judge 22 23 ' The new form went into effect on December 8, 2025.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Nathan Sanford v. Christopher Joseph, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nathan-sanford-v-christopher-joseph-et-al-nvd-2026.