Ronald Mulder v. Department of Homeland Security, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: October 2, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01220
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Ronald Mulder, No. 2:25-cv-01220-APG-MDC 4 Plaintiff,

5 vs. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 6 Department of Homeland Security, et al., PAUPERIS (ECF NO. 5) 7 Defendants. 8 Pending before the Court is pro se plaintiff Ronald Mulder’s Application to Proceed In Forma 9 Pauperis (“IFP”) (ECF No. 5). The Court denies the IFP application without prejudice. Plaintiff must 10 either file a new Long Form IFP application OR pay the full filing $405 fee by Monday November 3, 11 2025. 12 DISCUSSION 13 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a plaintiff may bring a civil action “without prepayment of fees or 14 security thereof” if the plaintiff submits a financial affidavit that demonstrates the plaintiff “is unable to 15 pay such fees or give security therefor.” The Ninth Circuit has recognized that “there is no formula set 16 forth by statute, regulation, or case law to determine when someone is poor enough to earn IFP status.” 17 Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1235 (9th Cir. 2015). An applicant need not be destitute to 18 qualify for a waiver of costs and fees, but he must demonstrate that because of his poverty he cannot pay 19 those costs and still provide himself with the necessities of life. Adkins v. E.I DuPont de Nemours & 20 Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). 21 The applicant's affidavit must state the facts regarding the individual's poverty “with some 22 particularity, definiteness and certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) 23 (citation omitted). If an individual is unable or unwilling to verify his or her poverty, district courts have 24 the discretion to make a factual inquiry into a plaintiff's financial status and to deny a request to proceed 25 1 1 in forma pauperis. See, e.g., Marin v. Hahn, 271 Fed.Appx. 578 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding that the district 2 court did not abuse its discretion by denying the plaintiff's request to proceed IFP because he “failed to 3 verify his poverty adequately”). “Such affidavit must include a complete statement of the plaintiff's 4 personal assets.” Harper v. San Diego City Admin. Bldg., No. 16cv00768 AJB (BLM), 2016 U.S. Dist. 5 LEXIS 192145, at 1 (S.D. Cal. June 9, 2016). Misrepresentation of assets is sufficient grounds in 6 themselves for denying an in forma pauperis application. Cf. Kennedy v. Huibregtse, 831 F.3d 441, 443- 7 44 (7th Cir. 2016) (affirming dismissal with prejudice after litigant misrepresented assets on in forma 8 pauperis application). 9 The District of Nevada has adopted three types of IFP applications: a “Prisoner Form” for 10 incarcerated persons and a “Short Form” (AO 240) and “Long Form” (AO 239) for non-incarcerated 11 persons. The Long Form requires more detailed information than the Short Form. 12 Plaintiff’s current IFP application (ECF No. 5) not only remains deficient, but is also inconsistent 13 with his initial IFP application and “affidavit in support.” (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff initially stated that he 14 did not own “any cash [or] bank accounts[.]”. ECF No. 1 at 2. Plaintiff now claims to have 15 approximately “$130.00/100” in a checking or savings account. ECF No. 5 at 2. Plaintiff must provide 16 more detail regarding this inconsistency.1 Plaintiff also answered “N/A” to if he owned anything of 17 value and if he had any dependents who relied on him for support. ECF No. 5 at 2. The Court previously 18 stated (ECF No. 1) that plaintiff could not simply answer questions in his IFP application “N/A” without 19 further explanation. ECF No. 4 at 2. Finally, plaintiff’s approximation of his miscellaneous monthly 20 expenses seems to be ripped or blacked out and cannot be clearly seen in the IFP application. ECF No. 5 21 at 2. Taking into account both IFP applications, the Court finds that there are inconsistencies and 22 deficiencies in plaintiff’s current IFP application. 23 24

25 1 For example, plaintiff could have recently opened a bank account and deposited money in it. 2 1 However, the Court will give plaintiff another opportunity to file his IFP application. If plaintiff 2 || wishes to proceed in forma pauperis, plaintiff must complete a new Long Form IFP application 3 || responding to the Court’s request for clarification and additional information made by this Order. 4 || Plaintiff must also answer every question on the Long Form IFP application. Plaintiff cannot simply 5 || answer a question with “N/A” without further explanation. 6 ACCORDINGLY, 7 IT IS ORDERED that: 8 1. The IFP application (ECF No. 5) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 9 2. Plaintiff must either: (1) file a Long Form IFP application, curing the deficiencies and 10 inconsistencies noted in this Order, or (2) pay the full $405 filing fee by Monday November 11 3, 2025. Failure to timely comply with this Order may result in a recommendation that this 12 case be dismissed. 13 14 DATED: October 2, 2025. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED.

7 Hof Maxintiliano . Couvillier Il Gnited Ses Nab Judge NOTICE 19 Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and

1 recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk

0 of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal

33 may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified

time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985).

1 This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) 2 failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District 3 Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 4 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 5 Pursuant to LR IA 3-1, the plaintiff must immediately file written notification with the court of any 6 change of address. The notification must include proof of service upon each opposing party’s attorney, 7 or upon the opposing party if the party is unrepresented by counsel. Failure to comply with this rule may 8 result in dismissal of the action. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4