Silver v. Transworld Systems Inc

W.D. Washington

Silver v. Transworld Systems Inc

DecidedJune 2, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-01024

StatusUnknown

This text of Silver v. Transworld Systems Inc (Silver v. Transworld Systems Inc) 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

Silver v. Transworld Systems Inc, (W.D. Wash. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 FREDERICK O. SILVER, 9 Plaintiff, Case No. C25-1024-KKE 10 v. ORDER 11 TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS INC., et al., 12 Defendants. 13

14 Plaintiff has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in the above- 15 entitled action. (Dkt. # 1.) In the IFP application, Plaintiff indicates that he has never been 16 employed and has not received any financial assistance in the past twelve months. (Id. at 1.) He 17 reports having $38.00 in cash on hand, no funds in checking or savings accounts, and no 18 valuable property. (Id. at 2.) He also states he incurs monthly expenses totaling $1,860.00, 19 including $680.00 to support his son. (Id.) Asked for any other information to explain why he 20 cannot afford court fees, Plaintiff explains that he has not been able to find work. (Id.) 21 The district court may permit indigent litigants to proceed IFP upon completion of a 22 proper affidavit of indigence. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). “To qualify for in forma pauperis status, 23 a civil litigant must demonstrate both that the litigant is unable to pay court fees and that the 1 claims he or she seeks to pursue are not frivolous.” Ogunsalu v. Nair, 117 F. App’x 522, 523 2 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 1051 (2005). To meet the first prong of this test, a litigant 3 must show that he or she “cannot because of his [or her] poverty pay or give security for the 4 costs and still be able to provide him[ or her]self and dependents with the necessities of life.”

5 Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948) (internal alterations 6 omitted). 7 Plaintiff’s IFP application omits information necessary for the Court to determine 8 whether he is able to afford court fees. Given that he reports no income and no savings, it is 9 unclear how he can both support his son with $680.00 monthly and cover his own expenses. 10 Without further clarification, Plaintiff should not be granted permission to proceed IFP. 11 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause by June 16, 2025, why the Court 12 should not recommend his IFP application be denied. In the alternative, on or before that date, 13 Plaintiff may file an amended IFP application clarifying the matters noted above. The Clerk is 14 directed to renote Plaintiff’s IFP application (dkt. # 1) for June 16, 2025, and to send copies of

15 this order to Plaintiff, along with a blank IFP application, and to the Honorable Kymberly K. 16 Evanson. 17 Dated this 2nd day of June, 2025. 18 A 19 MICHELLE L. PETERSON United States Magistrate Judge 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 FREDERICK O. SILVER, 9 Plaintiff, Case No. C25-1024-KKE 10 v. ORDER 11 TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS INC., et al., 12 Defendants. 13

14 Plaintiff has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in the above- 15 entitled action. (Dkt. # 1.) In the IFP application, Plaintiff indicates that he has never been 16 employed and has not received any financial assistance in the past twelve months. (Id. at 1.) He 17 reports having $38.00 in cash on hand, no funds in checking or savings accounts, and no 18 valuable property. (Id. at 2.) He also states he incurs monthly expenses totaling $1,860.00, 19 including $680.00 to support his son. (Id.) Asked for any other information to explain why he 20 cannot afford court fees, Plaintiff explains that he has not been able to find work. (Id.) 21 The district court may permit indigent litigants to proceed IFP upon completion of a 22 proper affidavit of indigence. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). “To qualify for in forma pauperis status, 23 a civil litigant must demonstrate both that the litigant is unable to pay court fees and that the 1 claims he or she seeks to pursue are not frivolous.” Ogunsalu v. Nair, 117 F. App’x 522, 523 2 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 1051 (2005). To meet the first prong of this test, a litigant 3 must show that he or she “cannot because of his [or her] poverty pay or give security for the 4 costs and still be able to provide him[ or her]self and dependents with the necessities of life.”

5 Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948) (internal alterations 6 omitted). 7 Plaintiff’s IFP application omits information necessary for the Court to determine 8 whether he is able to afford court fees. Given that he reports no income and no savings, it is 9 unclear how he can both support his son with $680.00 monthly and cover his own expenses. 10 Without further clarification, Plaintiff should not be granted permission to proceed IFP. 11 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause by June 16, 2025, why the Court 12 should not recommend his IFP application be denied. In the alternative, on or before that date, 13 Plaintiff may file an amended IFP application clarifying the matters noted above. The Clerk is 14 directed to renote Plaintiff’s IFP application (dkt. # 1) for June 16, 2025, and to send copies of

15 this order to Plaintiff, along with a blank IFP application, and to the Honorable Kymberly K. 16 Evanson. 17 Dated this 2nd day of June, 2025. 18 A 19 MICHELLE L. PETERSON United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Silver v. Transworld Systems Inc, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/silver-v-transworld-systems-inc-wawd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack