Pugh v. Best Buy

W.D. Washington

Pugh v. Best Buy

DecidedJuly 1, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-00884

StatusUnknown

This text of Pugh v. Best Buy (Pugh v. Best Buy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pugh v. Best Buy, (W.D. Wash. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 DAMIEN DESHAWN PUGH, 9 Plaintiff, Case No. C25-884-JLR 10 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 11 BEST BUY, 12 Defendant. 13

14 Plaintiff has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in the 15 above-entitled action. (Dkt. # 6.) In the IFP application, Plaintiff states he is unemployed, has not 16 received money from any source in the past twelve months, has no cash or funds in bank 17 accounts, owns no valuable property, and has no dependents. (Id. at 1-2.) He left blank the 18 sections of the application requesting information about his monthly expenses and any other 19 information reasons why he cannot pay court fees and costs. (Id. at 2.) 20 The district court may permit indigent litigants to proceed IFP upon completion of a 21 proper affidavit of indigence. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). “To qualify for in forma pauperis status, 22 a civil litigant must demonstrate both that the litigant is unable to pay court fees and that the 23 claims he or she seeks to pursue are not frivolous.” Ogunsalu v. Nair, 117 F. App’x 522, 523 1 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 1051 (2005). To meet the first prong of this test, a litigant 2 must show that he or she “cannot because of his [or her] poverty pay or give security for the 3 costs and still be able to provide him[ or her]self and dependents with the necessities of life.” 4 Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948) (internal alterations

5 omitted). 6 Here, Plaintiff’s IFP application omits information necessary for the Court to determine 7 whether he is able to afford court fees. Plaintiff fails to explain how he can meet his basic living 8 needs, such as food and housing, given his lack of income or savings. Without further 9 information, Plaintiff should not be authorized to proceed IFP. 10 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause by July 15, 2025, why this Court 11 should not recommend that his IFP application be denied. In the alternative, Plaintiff may file an 12 amended IFP application clarifying the matters noted above by that date. The Clerk is directed to 13 re-note Plaintiff’s IFP application (dkt. # 6) for July 15, 2025, and to send copies of this order to 14 Plaintiff, along with a blank IFP application, and to the Honorable James L. Robart.

15 Dated this 1st day of July, 2025. 16 A 17 MICHELLE L. PETERSON United States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 DAMIEN DESHAWN PUGH, 9 Plaintiff, Case No. C25-884-JLR 10 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 11 BEST BUY, 12 Defendant. 13

14 Plaintiff has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in the 15 above-entitled action. (Dkt. # 6.) In the IFP application, Plaintiff states he is unemployed, has not 16 received money from any source in the past twelve months, has no cash or funds in bank 17 accounts, owns no valuable property, and has no dependents. (Id. at 1-2.) He left blank the 18 sections of the application requesting information about his monthly expenses and any other 19 information reasons why he cannot pay court fees and costs. (Id. at 2.) 20 The district court may permit indigent litigants to proceed IFP upon completion of a 21 proper affidavit of indigence. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). “To qualify for in forma pauperis status, 22 a civil litigant must demonstrate both that the litigant is unable to pay court fees and that the 23 claims he or she seeks to pursue are not frivolous.” Ogunsalu v. Nair, 117 F. App’x 522, 523 1 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 1051 (2005). To meet the first prong of this test, a litigant 2 must show that he or she “cannot because of his [or her] poverty pay or give security for the 3 costs and still be able to provide him[ or her]self and dependents with the necessities of life.” 4 Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948) (internal alterations

5 omitted). 6 Here, Plaintiff’s IFP application omits information necessary for the Court to determine 7 whether he is able to afford court fees. Plaintiff fails to explain how he can meet his basic living 8 needs, such as food and housing, given his lack of income or savings. Without further 9 information, Plaintiff should not be authorized to proceed IFP. 10 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause by July 15, 2025, why this Court 11 should not recommend that his IFP application be denied. In the alternative, Plaintiff may file an 12 amended IFP application clarifying the matters noted above by that date. The Clerk is directed to 13 re-note Plaintiff’s IFP application (dkt. # 6) for July 15, 2025, and to send copies of this order to 14 Plaintiff, along with a blank IFP application, and to the Honorable James L. Robart.

15 Dated this 1st day of July, 2025. 16 A 17 MICHELLE L. PETERSON United States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Pugh v. Best Buy, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pugh-v-best-buy-wawd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack