UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 U'Nika J Queeney Yahral, also known as, 4 Queeney of Queenz144, also known as, 2:24-cv-02042-MDC DaughterofDaughterz144, 5 ORDER DENYING APPLICATIONS TO 6 vs. Plaintiffs, P NR OO S.C 1E AE ND D I N 5) F ORMA PAUPERIS (EFC 7 Frankie Cooper, et al., 8 Defendants.
9 Pro se plaintiff U'Nika J Queeney Yahral filed multiple Applications To Proceed In Forma 10 Pauperis (“IFP”) on different forms (ECF Nos. 1 and 5). The Court DENIES her IFP applications 11 12 without prejudice because there are inconsistencies between the two IFP applications that she filed. The 13 identity or correct name of the applicant is also unclear and inconsistent with the plaintiff 14 named/identified in the complaint. The IFP applications identify “U'Nika J Queeney Yahral” as the 15 plaintiff and applicant, but the Complaint identifies “Queeney of Queenz144” and 16 “DaughterofDaughterz144” as the two plaintiffs. See caption at ECF No. 1-1. While the Court does not 17 screen plaintiff’s complaint at this time, the Court notes that the proposed complaint is also not signed 18 by the plaintiff in her true name. See Id. at 7. The Court will give plaintiff another opportunity to correct 19 or address these inconsistencies, file a complete IFP application, and refile a complaint brought in 20 plaintiff’s name with a proper signature. 21 I. PLAINTIFF’S IFP APPLICATION 22 23 A. Legal Standard 24 Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 10(a) commands that the title of every complaint must name all 25 the parties. "The normal presumption in litigation is that parties must use their real names." Doe v. Kamehameha Sch./Bernice Pauahi Bishop Est., 596 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2010). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1 1915(a)(1), a plaintiff may bring a civil action “without prepayment of fees or security thereof” if the 2 plaintiff submits a financial affidavit that demonstrates the plaintiff “is unable to pay such fees or give 3 4 security therefor.” The Ninth Circuit has recognized that “there is no formula set forth by statute, 5 regulation, or case law to determine when someone is poor enough to earn IFP status.” Escobedo v. 6 Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1235 (9th Cir. 2015). An applicant need not be destitute to qualify for a 7 waiver of costs and fees, but he must demonstrate that because of his poverty he cannot pay those costs 8 and still provide himself with the necessities of life. Adkins v. E.I DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 9 331, 339 (1948). 10 The applicant's affidavit must state the facts regarding the individual's poverty “with some 11 particularity, definiteness and certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) 12 (citation omitted). If an individual is unable or unwilling to verify his or her poverty, district courts have 13 the discretion to make a factual inquiry into a plaintiff's financial status and to deny a request to proceed 14 in forma pauperis. See, e.g., Marin v. Hahn, 271 Fed.Appx. 578 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding that the district 15 court did not abuse its discretion by denying the plaintiff's request to proceed IFP because he “failed to 16 17 verify his poverty adequately”). “Such affidavit must include a complete statement of the plaintiff's 18 personal assets.” Harper v. San Diego City Admin. Bldg., No. 16cv00768 AJB (BLM), 2016 U.S. Dist. 19 LEXIS 192145, at 1 (S.D. Cal. June 9, 2016). Misrepresentation of assets is sufficient grounds in 20 themselves for denying an in forma pauperis application. Cf. Kennedy v. Huibregtse, 831 F.3d 441, 443- 21 44 (7th Cir. 2016) (affirming dismissal with prejudice after litigant misrepresented assets on in forma 22 pauperis application). 23 The District of Nevada has adopted three types of IFP applications: a “Prisoner Form” for 24 incarcerated persons and a “Short Form” (AO 240) and “Long Form” (AO 239) for non-incarcerated 25 2 persons. The Long Form requires more detailed information than the Short Form. The court typically 1 does not order an applicant to submit the Long Form unless the Short Form is inadequate, or it appears 2 that the plaintiff is concealing information about his income for determining whether the applicant 3 4 qualifies for IFP status. When an applicant is specifically ordered to submit the Long Form, the correct 5 form must be submitted, and the applicant must provide all the information requested in the Long Form 6 so that the court is able to make a fact finding regarding the applicant's financial status. See e.g. Greco v. 7 NYE Cty. Dist. Jude Robert Lane, No. 215CV01370MMDPAL, 2016 WL 7493981, at 3 (D. Nev. Nov. 8 9, 2016), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Greco v. Lake, No. 215CV001370MMDPAL, 9 2016 WL 7493963 (D. Nev. Dec. 30, 2016). "[w]here there are multiple plaintiffs in a single action, the 10 plaintiffs may not proceed in forma pauperis unless all of them demonstrate inability to pay the filing 11 fee." Martinez v. Lutz, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137515, 2018 WL 3924266, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 12 2018). 13 B. Analysis 14 Plaintiff filed two IFP applications: a long form application (ECF No.1) and an IFP application 15 from the Nevada family court (ECF No. 5). In the long form application, she states that she receives 16 17 $1,313 a month in social security. ECF No. 1. She states that she has no cash, no bank account, and no 18 assets. Id. She states that she barely survives on $1,313 a month (Id. at 5), but she states that she has no 19 bills whatsoever (she lists $0 in response to every question that asks about her bills, such as what she 20 spends on food and transportation). Id. at 4. Plaintiff’s second IFP application from the Nevada family 21 court, on the other hand, states that she has $629 worth of bills. ECF No. 5. These inconsistencies give 22 the Court further pause because the proposed complaint is brought in the name of apparent aliases and 23 not in plaintiff’s name. The Court cannot determine if the plaintiff qualifies for IFP status. The Court 24 will allow plaintiff another opportunity to address these inconsistencies and show that she qualifies for 25 3 IFP status. The plaintiff must submit a new long form application that is in her legal name and includes 1 her expenses. Plaintiff must answer all questions on the long form with detailed explanations about her 2 individual incomes and expenses. Plaintiff cannot leave any questions blank or respond that a question is 3 4 “N/A” without an explanation. 5 The Court also orders that plaintiff must proceed with her real name per the Federal Rules. She 6 must inform the Court of her legal name on her IFP application. Her legal name on her IFP application 7 must match the name on her complaint. If plaintiff’s legal name is U'Nika J Queeney Yahral, then she 8 must refile a proposed complaint that lists U'Nika J Queeney Yahral as the sole plaintiff without 9 including any aliases. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED THAT: 11 1. Plaintiffs’ Applications to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF Nos. 1 and 5) are both DENIED 12 without prejudice with leave to refile. 13 2. By January 8, 2025, plaintiff must EITHER (1) file a new long form application to proceed in 14 forma pauperis as specified in the Court’s order or (2) plaintiff must pay the full fee for filing a 15 civil action. 16 17 3. Plaintiff is also DIRECTED to refile her proposed complaint with her legal name and to sign her 18 proposed complaint with her legal name. 19 4.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 U'Nika J Queeney Yahral, also known as, 4 Queeney of Queenz144, also known as, 2:24-cv-02042-MDC DaughterofDaughterz144, 5 ORDER DENYING APPLICATIONS TO 6 vs. Plaintiffs, P NR OO S.C 1E AE ND D I N 5) F ORMA PAUPERIS (EFC 7 Frankie Cooper, et al., 8 Defendants.
9 Pro se plaintiff U'Nika J Queeney Yahral filed multiple Applications To Proceed In Forma 10 Pauperis (“IFP”) on different forms (ECF Nos. 1 and 5). The Court DENIES her IFP applications 11 12 without prejudice because there are inconsistencies between the two IFP applications that she filed. The 13 identity or correct name of the applicant is also unclear and inconsistent with the plaintiff 14 named/identified in the complaint. The IFP applications identify “U'Nika J Queeney Yahral” as the 15 plaintiff and applicant, but the Complaint identifies “Queeney of Queenz144” and 16 “DaughterofDaughterz144” as the two plaintiffs. See caption at ECF No. 1-1. While the Court does not 17 screen plaintiff’s complaint at this time, the Court notes that the proposed complaint is also not signed 18 by the plaintiff in her true name. See Id. at 7. The Court will give plaintiff another opportunity to correct 19 or address these inconsistencies, file a complete IFP application, and refile a complaint brought in 20 plaintiff’s name with a proper signature. 21 I. PLAINTIFF’S IFP APPLICATION 22 23 A. Legal Standard 24 Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 10(a) commands that the title of every complaint must name all 25 the parties. "The normal presumption in litigation is that parties must use their real names." Doe v. Kamehameha Sch./Bernice Pauahi Bishop Est., 596 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2010). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1 1915(a)(1), a plaintiff may bring a civil action “without prepayment of fees or security thereof” if the 2 plaintiff submits a financial affidavit that demonstrates the plaintiff “is unable to pay such fees or give 3 4 security therefor.” The Ninth Circuit has recognized that “there is no formula set forth by statute, 5 regulation, or case law to determine when someone is poor enough to earn IFP status.” Escobedo v. 6 Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1235 (9th Cir. 2015). An applicant need not be destitute to qualify for a 7 waiver of costs and fees, but he must demonstrate that because of his poverty he cannot pay those costs 8 and still provide himself with the necessities of life. Adkins v. E.I DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 9 331, 339 (1948). 10 The applicant's affidavit must state the facts regarding the individual's poverty “with some 11 particularity, definiteness and certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) 12 (citation omitted). If an individual is unable or unwilling to verify his or her poverty, district courts have 13 the discretion to make a factual inquiry into a plaintiff's financial status and to deny a request to proceed 14 in forma pauperis. See, e.g., Marin v. Hahn, 271 Fed.Appx. 578 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding that the district 15 court did not abuse its discretion by denying the plaintiff's request to proceed IFP because he “failed to 16 17 verify his poverty adequately”). “Such affidavit must include a complete statement of the plaintiff's 18 personal assets.” Harper v. San Diego City Admin. Bldg., No. 16cv00768 AJB (BLM), 2016 U.S. Dist. 19 LEXIS 192145, at 1 (S.D. Cal. June 9, 2016). Misrepresentation of assets is sufficient grounds in 20 themselves for denying an in forma pauperis application. Cf. Kennedy v. Huibregtse, 831 F.3d 441, 443- 21 44 (7th Cir. 2016) (affirming dismissal with prejudice after litigant misrepresented assets on in forma 22 pauperis application). 23 The District of Nevada has adopted three types of IFP applications: a “Prisoner Form” for 24 incarcerated persons and a “Short Form” (AO 240) and “Long Form” (AO 239) for non-incarcerated 25 2 persons. The Long Form requires more detailed information than the Short Form. The court typically 1 does not order an applicant to submit the Long Form unless the Short Form is inadequate, or it appears 2 that the plaintiff is concealing information about his income for determining whether the applicant 3 4 qualifies for IFP status. When an applicant is specifically ordered to submit the Long Form, the correct 5 form must be submitted, and the applicant must provide all the information requested in the Long Form 6 so that the court is able to make a fact finding regarding the applicant's financial status. See e.g. Greco v. 7 NYE Cty. Dist. Jude Robert Lane, No. 215CV01370MMDPAL, 2016 WL 7493981, at 3 (D. Nev. Nov. 8 9, 2016), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Greco v. Lake, No. 215CV001370MMDPAL, 9 2016 WL 7493963 (D. Nev. Dec. 30, 2016). "[w]here there are multiple plaintiffs in a single action, the 10 plaintiffs may not proceed in forma pauperis unless all of them demonstrate inability to pay the filing 11 fee." Martinez v. Lutz, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137515, 2018 WL 3924266, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 12 2018). 13 B. Analysis 14 Plaintiff filed two IFP applications: a long form application (ECF No.1) and an IFP application 15 from the Nevada family court (ECF No. 5). In the long form application, she states that she receives 16 17 $1,313 a month in social security. ECF No. 1. She states that she has no cash, no bank account, and no 18 assets. Id. She states that she barely survives on $1,313 a month (Id. at 5), but she states that she has no 19 bills whatsoever (she lists $0 in response to every question that asks about her bills, such as what she 20 spends on food and transportation). Id. at 4. Plaintiff’s second IFP application from the Nevada family 21 court, on the other hand, states that she has $629 worth of bills. ECF No. 5. These inconsistencies give 22 the Court further pause because the proposed complaint is brought in the name of apparent aliases and 23 not in plaintiff’s name. The Court cannot determine if the plaintiff qualifies for IFP status. The Court 24 will allow plaintiff another opportunity to address these inconsistencies and show that she qualifies for 25 3 IFP status. The plaintiff must submit a new long form application that is in her legal name and includes 1 her expenses. Plaintiff must answer all questions on the long form with detailed explanations about her 2 individual incomes and expenses. Plaintiff cannot leave any questions blank or respond that a question is 3 4 “N/A” without an explanation. 5 The Court also orders that plaintiff must proceed with her real name per the Federal Rules. She 6 must inform the Court of her legal name on her IFP application. Her legal name on her IFP application 7 must match the name on her complaint. If plaintiff’s legal name is U'Nika J Queeney Yahral, then she 8 must refile a proposed complaint that lists U'Nika J Queeney Yahral as the sole plaintiff without 9 including any aliases. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED THAT: 11 1. Plaintiffs’ Applications to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF Nos. 1 and 5) are both DENIED 12 without prejudice with leave to refile. 13 2. By January 8, 2025, plaintiff must EITHER (1) file a new long form application to proceed in 14 forma pauperis as specified in the Court’s order or (2) plaintiff must pay the full fee for filing a 15 civil action. 16 17 3. Plaintiff is also DIRECTED to refile her proposed complaint with her legal name and to sign her 18 proposed complaint with her legal name. 19 4. Failure to timely comply with this Order may result in a recommendation that this case be 20 dismissed with prejudice. 21 NOTICE 22 Before appearances and consent of defendants, there is not full consent for a magistrate judge to 23 enter dispositive orders. See Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 2017). Pursuant to Local Rules IB 24 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and recommendations issued by the magistrate 25 4 judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 1 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal may determine that an appeal has been 2 waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 3 4 (1985). This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) 5 failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District 6 Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 7 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 8 Pursuant to LR IA 3-1, plaintiffs must immediately file written notification with the court of any change 9 of address. The notification must include proof of service upon each opposing party’s attorney, or upon 10 the opposing party if the party is unrepresented by counsel. Failure to comply with this rule may 11 result in dismissal of the action. 12 It is so ordered. 13 DATED: December 10, 2024. 14 _________________________ 15 Hon. Maximiliano D. Couvillier III United States Magistrate Judge 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 5