Terrance Turner v. SBGA, et al.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * * Terrance Turner, Case No. 2:25-cv-02000-JAD-DJA Plaintiff, Order v. SBGA, et al., Defendants. Pro se Plaintiff Terrance Turner has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (meaning, to proceed without paying the filing fee). (ECF No. 1). However, Plaintiff’s application is missing certain information. The Court thus denies Plaintiff’s application without prejudice. I. Discussion. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a plaintiff may bring a civil action “without prepayment of fees or security therefor” if the plaintiff submits a financial affidavit that demonstrates the plaintiff “is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” The Ninth Circuit has recognized that “there is no formula set forth by statute, regulation, or case law to determine when someone is poor enough to earn [in forma pauperis] status.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1235 (9th Cir. 2015). An applicant need not be destitute to qualify for a waiver of costs and fees, but he must demonstrate that because of his poverty he cannot pay those costs and still provide himself with the necessities of life. Adkins v. E.I DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). The applicant’s affidavit must state the facts regarding the individual’s poverty “with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) (citation omitted). If an individual is unable or unwilling to verify his or her status and to deny a request to proceed in forma pauperis. See, e.g., Marin v. Hahn, 271 Fed.Appx. 578 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis because he “failed to verify his poverty adequately”). “Such affidavit must include a complete statement of the plaintiff’s personal assets.” Harper v. San Diego City Admin. Bldg., No. 16-cv-00768 AJB (BLM), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192145, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 9, 2016). Misrepresentation of assets is sufficient grounds for denying an in forma pauperis application. Cf. Kennedy v. Huibregtse, 831 F.3d 441, 443-44 (7th Cir. 2016) (affirming dismissal with prejudice after litigant misrepresented assets on in forma pauperis application). Plaintiff’s application is incomplete. In response to question 2, Plaintiff lists two former employers, asserting that he was employed in June of 2024. But Plaintiff does not list his gross monthly pay from those employers. In response to question 5, Plaintiff claims to own a vehicle. However, Plaintiff does not list the approximate value of that vehicle, instead listing the value as $0 without explanation. In response to question 8, Plaintiff claims that his only monthly expense is $600 per month for food. But Plaintiff does not explain how he lives given his claim to make no income and to pay only $600 per month in bills. Additionally, Plaintiff includes an address on the docket and public records indicate that the address is a home. But Plaintiff claims to pay no money in rent, utilities, home maintenance, or other expenses. And Plaintiff does not claim that someone else is paying these bills for him. Given these issues, the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff qualifies for in forma pauperis status. The Court will give Plaintiff an opportunity to file a complete in forma pauperis application. Because Plaintiff has previously filled out the Court’s Long Form application, the Court will require that his renewed application also be on this Court’s Long Form application. See Greco v. NYE County Dist. Jude Robert Lane, No. 2:15-cv-01370-MMD-PAL, 2016 WL 7493981, at *3 (D. Nev. Nov. 9, 2016) report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Greco v. Lake, No. 2:15-cv-001370-MMD-PAL, 2016 WL 7493963 (D. Nev. Dec. 30, 2016) (explaining that “when an applicant is specifically ordered to submit the Long Form, the correct form must be the court is able to make a fact finding regarding the applicant’s financial status”) (emphasis in original). The Court further orders that Plaintiff may not respond with a zero or “not applicable” in response to any question without providing an explanation for each of the questions. Plaintiff also may not leave any questions blank. Plaintiff must describe each source of money that he receives, state the amount he received, and what he expects to receive in the future. The Court denies Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application without prejudice. The Court gives Plaintiff 30 days to file an updated application on the Court’s Long Form. Plaintiff must fully answer all applicable questions and check all applicable boxes. Plaintiff may alternatively pay the filing fee in full. Since the Court denies Plaintiff’s application, it does not screen the complaint at this time. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) is denied without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff has until May 22, 2026, to file an updated application to proceed in forma pauperis as specified in this order or pay the filing fee. Failure to timely comply with this order may result in a recommendation to the district judge that this case be dismissed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to send Plaintiff a copy of this order and of the Long Form application to proceed in forma pauperis and its instructions.1 DATED: April 22, 2026, DANIEL J. ALBREGTS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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