Peterson v. The Siegel Group Nevada, Inc.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: February 24, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-02265
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Cary Peterson, Case No. 2:24-cv-02265-APG-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 Order v. 8 Siegel Group Nevada Inc.; et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pro se Cary Peterson filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (meaning without 12 paying the filing fee). (ECF No. 6). However, the Court is unable to determine if Plaintiff 13 qualifies for in forma pauperis status from the information provided in the application. The Court 14 thus denies Plaintiff’s application without prejudice. Plaintiff has also filed a “notice” on the 15 docket, which document is not properly filed with the Court. The Court thus strikes the notice. 16 Additionally, Plaintiff’s mail was returned as undeliverable. So, the Court orders Plaintiff to 17 update his address. 18 I. Discussion. 19 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a plaintiff may bring a civil action “without prepayment of 20 fees or security therefor” if the plaintiff submits a financial affidavit that demonstrates the 21 plaintiff “is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” The Ninth Circuit has recognized 22 that “there is no formula set forth by statute, regulation, or case law to determine when someone 23 is poor enough to earn [in forma pauperis] status.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1235 24 (9th Cir. 2015). An applicant need not be destitute to qualify for a waiver of costs and fees, but 25 he must demonstrate that because of his poverty he cannot pay those costs and still provide 26 himself with the necessities of life. Adkins v. E.I DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 27 (1948). 1 The applicant’s affidavit must state the facts regarding the individual’s poverty “with 2 some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 3 (9th Cir. 1981) (citation omitted). If an individual is unable or unwilling to verify his or her 4 poverty, district courts have the discretion to make a factual inquiry into a plaintiff’s financial 5 status and to deny a request to proceed in forma pauperis. See, e.g., Marin v. Hahn, 271 6 Fed.Appx. 578 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by 7 denying the plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis because he “failed to verify his 8 poverty adequately”). “Such affidavit must include a complete statement of the plaintiff’s 9 personal assets.” Harper v. San Diego City Admin. Bldg., No. 16-cv-00768 AJB (BLM), 2016 10 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192145, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 9, 2016). Misrepresentation of assets is sufficient 11 grounds for denying an in forma pauperis application. Cf. Kennedy v. Huibregtse, 831 F.3d 441, 12 443-44 (7th Cir. 2016) (affirming dismissal with prejudice after litigant misrepresented assets on 13 in forma pauperis application). 14 It is unclear from Plaintiff’s application whether he qualifies for in forma pauperis status. 15 For example, in response to the portion of question two, asking Plaintiff to “describe…each 16 source of money and state the amount that you received and what you expect to receive in the 17 future,” Plaintiff outlines certain stipends and loans he has received. However, while it appears 18 that Plaintiff has already received these sums, Plaintiff does not explain what he expects to 19 receive in the future. So, it is unclear to the Court whether Plaintiff received this money on a one- 20 time basis, or whether he expects to receive these sums, or other sums, in the future. In response 21 to question eight, Plaintiff states that he owes money to the “Government” in an uncertain 22 amount, so Plaintiff does not “describe the amounts owed and to whom they are payable” as 23 required. Additionally, Plaintiff includes “Federal Student Loan - $4400 (monthly payments 24 current).” But Plaintiff does not include these monthly payments in his monthly expenses in 25 response to question six. And it is unclear if the total amount he owes on his student loans is 26 $4,400 or if that is the amount of his monthly payments. 27 Given these issues, the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff qualifies for in forma 1 pauperis application on this Court’s application. The Court further orders that Plaintiff may not 2 respond with a zero or “not applicable” in response to any question without providing an 3 explanation for each of the questions. Plaintiff also may not leave any questions blank. Plaintiff 4 must describe each source of money that Plaintiff receives, state the amount received, and what 5 Plaintiff expects to receive in the future. 6 The Court denies Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application without prejudice. The Court 7 gives Plaintiff 30 days to file an updated application. Plaintiff must fully answer all applicable 8 questions and check all applicable boxes. Plaintiff may alternatively pay the filing fee in full. 9 Since the Court denies Plaintiff’s application, it does not screen the complaint at this time. 10 Additionally, Plaintiff has filed a series of emails on the docket, styled as a “notice.” 11 However, Plaintiff does not include any information about what these emails are or why he filed 12 them. And while the emails are named on the docket as a “notice,” they are not otherwise styled 13 as a notice. See LR IA 7-1(b) (explaining that all communications with the court must be styled 14 as a motion, stipulation, or notice). So, the Court strikes the filing. See LR IA 7-1(b). 15 Finally, the Court’s mail to Plaintiff was returned as undeliverable. (ECF No. 13). The 16 Nevada Local Rules require that “[a]n attorney or pro se party must immediately file with the 17 court written notification of any change of mailing address, email address, telephone number, or 18 facsimile number.” LR IA 3-1. That rule further provides that “[f]ailure to comply with this rule 19 may result in the dismissal of the action, entry of default judgment, or other sanctions as deemed 20 appropriate by the court.” Id. So, Plaintiff must update his address with the Court. 21 22 23 24 25 26 /// 27 /// 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 2 pauperis (ECF No. 6) is denied without prejudice. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff has until March 26, 2025, to file an updated 4 application to proceed in forma pauperis as specified in this order or pay the filing fee. Failure 5 to timely comply with this order may result in a recommendation to the district judge that 6 this case be dismissed. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to send Plaintiff 8 a copy of this order and of the short form application to proceed in forma pauperis and its 9 instructions.1 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to strike the 11 notice filed at ECF No. 14. 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff must update his address with the Court on or 13 before March 26, 2025. Failure to comply with this order may result in a recommendation 14 to the district judge that this case be dismissed. 15 16 DATED: February 24, 2025, 17 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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-