Oelker v. State of Nevada

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: May 2, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00528
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Jeromy Oelker, Case No. 2:25-cv-00528-JAD-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 Order v. 8 State of Nevada, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Jeromy Oelker filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF 12 No. 1). However, Plaintiff’s application is missing certain information. The Court thus denies 13 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 On his application, Plaintiff claims to be unemployed, to make no income from any 10 source, to have only three dollars in an account, and to have no bills. Plaintiff claims to have no 11 property other than an automobile, but “[t]he Nevada State Police will not tell” him where it is. 12 Plaintiff also claims to owe Vivian Baxter some unspecified amounts, but does not describe the 13 amounts owed as required by question eight. 14 On the docket, Plaintiff includes an address. The Court takes judicial notice of the fact 15 that public records reveal the address is a townhome. Plaintiff does not provide any details in the 16 application regarding how he pays rent, how he pays utilities or other bills, or how he lives 17 considering his claim to have only three dollars and no bills. The Court finds that Plaintiff has 18 omitted information from the application. As a result, the Court cannot determine whether 19 Plaintiff qualifies for in forma pauperis status. 20 The Court will give Plaintiff one opportunity to file a complete in forma pauperis 21 application. The Court further orders that Plaintiff may not respond with a zero or “not 22 applicable” in response to any question without providing an explanation for each of the 23 questions. Plaintiff also may not leave any questions blank. Plaintiff must describe each source 24 of money that he receives, state the amount he received, and what he expects to receive in the 25 future. 26 The Court denies Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application without prejudice. The Court 27 gives Plaintiff 30 days to file an updated application. Plaintiff must fully answer all applicable 1 questions and check all applicable boxes. Plaintiff may alternatively pay the filing fee in full. 2 Since the Court denies Plaintiff’s application, it does not screen the complaint at this time. 3 4 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 5 pauperis (ECF No. 1) is denied without prejudice. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff has until June 2, 2025, to file an updated 7 application to proceed in forma pauperis as specified in this order or pay the filing fee. Failure to 8 timely comply with this order may result in a recommendation to the district judge that this case 9 be dismissed. 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to send Plaintiff 11 a copy of this order and of the short form application to proceed in forma pauperis and its 12 instructions.1 13 14 DATED: May 2, 2025 15 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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-