Reddic v. Sagre

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: September 8, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01657
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Gwendolyn R. Reddic, Case No. 2:25-cv-01657-RFB-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 Order v. 8 Sagre, 9 Defendant. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Gwendolyn R. Reddic filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis 12 (which means, to proceed without paying the filing fee). (ECF No. 1). However, Plaintiff’s 13 application is missing certain information. Plaintiff has also failed to file a complaint. The Court 14 thus denies Plaintiff’s application without prejudice and will require Plaintiff to file a renewed 15 application along with a complaint. 16 I. Discussion. 17 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a plaintiff may bring a civil action “without prepayment of 18 fees or security therefor” if the plaintiff submits a financial affidavit that demonstrates the 19 plaintiff “is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” The Ninth Circuit has recognized 20 that “there is no formula set forth by statute, regulation, or case law to determine when someone 21 is poor enough to earn [in forma pauperis] status.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1235 22 (9th Cir. 2015). An applicant need not be destitute to qualify for a waiver of costs and fees, but 23 he must demonstrate that because of his poverty he cannot pay those costs and still provide 24 himself with the necessities of life. Adkins v. E.I DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 25 (1948). 26 The applicant’s affidavit must state the facts regarding the individual’s poverty “with 27 some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 1 poverty, district courts have the discretion to make a factual inquiry into a plaintiff’s financial 2 status and to deny a request to proceed in forma pauperis. See, e.g., Marin v. Hahn, 271 3 Fed.Appx. 578 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by 4 denying the plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis because he “failed to verify his 5 poverty adequately”). “Such affidavit must include a complete statement of the plaintiff’s 6 personal assets.” Harper v. San Diego City Admin. Bldg., No. 16-cv-00768 AJB (BLM), 2016 7 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192145, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 9, 2016). Misrepresentation of assets is sufficient 8 grounds for denying an in forma pauperis application. Cf. Kennedy v. Huibregtse, 831 F.3d 441, 9 443-44 (7th Cir. 2016) (affirming dismissal with prejudice after litigant misrepresented assets on 10 in forma pauperis application). 11 Plaintiff’s response to question 2 is incomplete because Plaintiff claims to make $1,000.00 12 in gross pay or wages. But Plaintiff does not identity her employer’s name and address, does not 13 identify her take-home pay or wages, and does not specify the pay period. Plaintiff’s response to 14 question 3 is incomplete because it appears that Plaintiff checked that she receives income from a 15 business, profession, or other self-employment and that she receives disability or worker’s 16 compensation payments. But Plaintiff does not describe each source of money and the amount 17 that she received and what she expects to receive in the future. Plaintiff provides in response to 18 question 6 that she has no housing, transportation, or loan payments or other regular monthly 19 expenses. However, on the docket, Plaintiff includes an address. It is unclear what type of 20 housing Plaintiff lists. But Plaintiff does not provide any details in the application regarding how 21 or if she pays rent or a mortgage, how or if she pays utilities or other bills, or how she lives 22 considering her claim to have no bills. Plaintiff does not respond to question 7 or 8 at all and 23 does not indicate if those questions are not applicable to her. 24 The Court finds that Plaintiff has omitted information from the application. As a result, 25 the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff qualifies for in forma pauperis status. The Court 26 will give Plaintiff one opportunity to file a complete in forma pauperis application. The Court 27 further orders that Plaintiff may not respond with a zero or “not applicable” in response to any 1 any questions blank. Plaintiff must describe each source of money that she receives, state the 2 amount she received, and what she expects to receive in the future. 3 The Court denies Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application without prejudice. The Court 4 gives Plaintiff 30 days to file an updated application. Plaintiff must fully answer all applicable 5 questions and check all applicable boxes. Plaintiff may alternatively pay the filing fee in full. 6 Additionally, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 3, “[a] civil action is commenced by 7 filing a complaint with the court.” However, Plaintiff did not attach a complaint to her 8 application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will therefore require that Plaintiff attach a 9 complaint to any updated application to proceed in forma pauperis or include a complaint with 10 any payment of the filing fee that she makes. 11 12 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 13 pauperis (ECF No. 1) is denied without prejudice. 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff has until October 8, 2025, to: (1) file an 15 updated application to proceed in forma pauperis as specified in this order or pay the filing fee; 16 and (2) to file a complaint. Failure to timely comply with this order may result in a 17 recommendation to the district judge that this case be dismissed. 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to send Plaintiff 19 a copy of this order and of the Short Form application to proceed in forma pauperis and its 20 instructions.1 21 22 DATED: September 8, 2025 23 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26

27 1 This form and its instructions can also be found at https://www.nvd.uscourts.gov/court-