Reams v. Boulder City

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: July 21, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01315
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Susan Reams, Case No. 2:25-cv-01315-APG-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 Order v. 8 Boulder City, 9 Defendant. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Susan Reams filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 12 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 her application, Plaintiff does not respond to question one or question two, which ask 10 if she is incarcerated or, if not, if she is employed. Plaintiff also asserts that she makes no money 11 from any source. Plaintiff claims that she has no money in cash or in a checking or savings 12 account, that she has no items of any value, that she has no bills of any kind, that she has no 13 dependents, and that she has no debts or financial obligations. On the docket, Plaintiff includes 14 an address. The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that public records reveal the address 15 appears to be a church. However, Plaintiff does not provide any details about whether she lives 16 or works at the church and, if so, if she earns income or pays rent or other bills. Plaintiff provides 17 no detail about how she lives considering her claims to have no money and no bills. The Court 18 finds that Plaintiff has omitted information from the application. As a result, the Court cannot 19 determine whether 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 she receives, state the amount she received, and what she 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 August 20, 2025, to file an updated 7 application to proceed in forma pauperis as specified in this order or pay the filing fee. Failure 8 to timely comply with this order may result in a recommendation to the district judge that 9 this case 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 Long Form application to proceed in forma pauperis and its 12 instructions.1 13 14 DATED: July 21, 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-