Terrance Christopher; T.C., Jr., a minor v. Clark County; Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department; The Animal Foundation

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: October 7, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01500
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Terrance Christopher; T.C., Jr., a minor, Case No. 2:25-cv-01500-RFB-DJA 6 Plaintiffs, 7 Order v. 8 Clark County; Las Vegas Metropolitan Police 9 Department; The Animal Foundation,

10 Defendants.

11 12 Pro se Plaintiff Terrance Christopher filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis 13 (which means, to proceed without paying the filing fee). (ECF No. 1). However, Christopher’s 14 application is missing certain information. Christopher has also not filed an application for T.C. 15 to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court thus denies Christopher’s application without prejudice. 16 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a plaintiff may bring a civil action “without prepayment of 17 fees or security therefor” if the plaintiff submits a financial affidavit that demonstrates the 18 plaintiff “is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” The Ninth Circuit has recognized 19 that “there is no formula set forth by statute, regulation, or case law to determine when someone 20 is poor enough to earn [in forma pauperis] status.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1235 21 (9th Cir. 2015). An applicant need not be destitute to qualify for a waiver of costs and fees, but 22 he must demonstrate that because of his poverty he cannot pay those costs and still provide 23 himself with the necessities of life. Adkins v. E.I DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 24 (1948). 25 The applicant’s affidavit must state the facts regarding the individual’s poverty “with 26 some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 27 (9th Cir. 1981) (citation omitted). If an individual is unable or unwilling to verify his or her 1 status and to deny a request to proceed in forma pauperis. See, e.g., Marin v. Hahn, 271 2 Fed.Appx. 578 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by 3 denying the plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis because he “failed to verify his 4 poverty adequately”). “Such affidavit must include a complete statement of the plaintiff’s 5 personal assets.” Harper v. San Diego City Admin. Bldg., No. 16-cv-00768 AJB (BLM), 2016 6 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192145, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 9, 2016). Misrepresentation of assets is sufficient 7 grounds for denying an in forma pauperis application. Cf. Kennedy v. Huibregtse, 831 F.3d 441, 8 443-44 (7th Cir. 2016) (affirming dismissal with prejudice after litigant misrepresented assets on 9 in forma pauperis application). 10 [A]lthough only one filing fee needs to be paid per case, if multiple plaintiffs seek to 11 proceed in forma pauperis, each plaintiff must qualify for IFP status.” Anderson v. California, 12 No. 10-cv-2216-MMA-AJB, 2010 WL 4316996, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2010). Pursuant to 28 13 U.S.C. § 1915(a), a party seeking to proceed IFP must submit an affidavit declaring that “the 14 person is unable to pay” Court costs. In addition, “where leave to proceed in forma pauperis is 15 sought to vindicate the alleged substantive rights of a minor, the financial resources of both the 16 minor and the volunteer parent, next friend, or guardian ad litem should be considered in 17 determining ability to pay the costs of litigation.” Cottingham for Washington v. Bd. of Educ. of 18 Emery Unified Sch. Dist., No. C-93-0824-DLJ, 1993 WL 79698, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 1993) 19 (quoting Williams v. Spencer, 455 F. Supp. 205, 209 (D. Maryland 1978)); Chavez v. Loma Linda 20 Med. Ctr., No. 5:22-cv-01268-SSS-SHK-X, 2022 WL 19827571, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2022) 21 On his application, Christopher does not respond to question 1, even to explain that it does 22 not apply to him. He only partially responds to question 2, by stating that he makes $2,000.00 in 23 gross pay monthly and takes home $1,800.00 of that. But Christopher does not explain whether 24 he is employed or provide his employer’s name or address. Christopher does not respond at all to 25 question 3. In response to question 6, Christopher claims to pay $2,200.00 per month, but does 26 not explain what he pays that amount towards each month. For example, he does not explain 27 whether that amount constitutes rent, utilities, food, transportation, or some combination of 1 docket, which address public records reveal is a house. Christopher also lists “[d]og 2 breeding/care expenses” in response to question 6, but does not provide an estimated amount of 3 those monthly expenses. Instead, he states that the amount varies monthly. The Court therefore 4 finds that Christopher has omitted information from the application. As a result, the Court cannot 5 determine whether Christopher qualifies for in forma pauperis status. 6 Additionally, T.C., a minor, is also listed as a Plaintiff. It is unclear whether Christopher 7 is bringing this action on T.C.’s behalf. Christopher lists T.C. as a dependent in response to 8 question 7, but does not explain how much he contributes to T.C.’s support or whether T.C. 9 contributes any money to the household income. Because T.C. is listed as a Plaintiff, the Court 10 must consider both T.C.’s financial resources—if any—and Christopher’s. So, along with 11 submitting a renewed application on his own behalf, Christopher must fill out a separate in forma 12 pauperis application for T.C. Finally, the Court informs Christopher that under Federal Rule of 13 Civil Procedure 5.2, filings that include the names of minor children may only include the 14 minor’s initials. 15 The Court will give Christopher one opportunity to file two complete in forma pauperis 16 applications—one for himself and one for T.C. The Court further orders that Christopher may not 17 respond with a zero or “not applicable” in response to any question without providing an 18 explanation for each of the questions. Christopher also may not leave any questions blank. 19 Christopher must describe each source of money that he and/or T.C. receives, state the amount 20 received, and what they expect to receive in the future. 21 The Court denies Christopher’s in forma pauperis application without prejudice. The 22 Court gives Christopher 30 days to file the updated applications. Christopher must fully answer 23 all applicable questions and check all applicable boxes. Christopher may alternatively pay the 24 filing fee in full. Since the Court denies Christopher’s application, it does not screen the 25 complaint at this time. 26 /// 27 /// 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Christopher’s application to proceed in forma 2 pauperis (ECF No. 1) is denied without prejudice. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Christopher has until November 6, 2025, to file two 4 updated applications to proceed in forma pauperis1 (one for himself and one for T.C.) as specified 5 in this order or pay the filing fee. Failure to timely comply with this order may result in a 6 recommendation to the district judge that this case be dismissed. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to send 8 Christopher a copy of this order. 9 10 DATED: October 7, 2025 11 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 12 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 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-