Nosov v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: September 8, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-02249
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 OLEG NOSOV, Case No.: 25cv2249-LL-BLM

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

14 UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND [ECF No. 2] IMMIGRATION SERVICES; 15 JOSEPH B. EDLOW, USCIS Director, 16 Defendants. 17

18 Before the Court is Plaintiff Oleg Nosov’s, proceeding pro se, motion for leave to 19 proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). ECF No. 2. 20 All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in district court of the 21 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 22 $405.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to 23 prepay the entire fee only if they are granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 24 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). “All 25

26 27 1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative fee of $55. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914. The additional $55 administrative fee does not apply to 28 1 || persons, not just prisoners, may seek IFP status.” Moore v. Maricopa Cnty. Sheriff's □□□□ 2 F.3d 890, 892 (9th Cir. 2011). A plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty “with 3 ||some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1126, 4 ||1234 (9th Cir. 2015) (internal citation omitted). “An affidavit in support of an IFP 5 || application is sufficient where it alleges that an affiant cannot pay the court costs and still 6 || afford the necessities of life.” Jd. While the IFP statute does not itself define what constitute 7 || insufficient assets, a party need not “be absolutely destitute” to proceed IFP. Adkins v. EI. 8 || DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). 9 Having read and considered Plaintiff's application, the Court finds that Plaintiff 10 ||meets the requirements for IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Plaintiff’s expenses of rent 11 food exceed his income, and his modest savings is less than half of one month’s 12 ||income. ECF No. 2. Under these circumstances the Court finds Plaintiff unable to pay the 13 Court’s filing fees without impairing his ability to provide himself the necessities of life. 14 || See Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to 15 || Proceed IFP. 16 The Clerk shall issue a summons and mail it to Plaintiff along with a blank U.S. 17 || Marshal Form 285 for each named Defendant, a certified copy of Plaintiff's complaint, and 18 |/acertified copy of this order. Plaintiff must complete the Form 285 and return it to the U.S. 19 || Marshal according to the instructions provided by the Clerk with the form. Thereafter, the 20 ||U.S. Marshal shall serve a copy of the complaint, summons, and this order upon 21 || Defendants as directed by Plaintiff on his Form 285. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 ||Dated: September 8, 2025 NO 24 DE | 25 Honorable Linda Lopez United States District Judge 27 28