Theresa M. Lara v. US Army McGrew Crew

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 THERESA M. LARA, 9 Plaintiff, Case No. C26-1881-RAJ 10 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 11 US ARMY MCGREW CREW, 12 Defendant. 13

14 Plaintiff Theresa M. Lara has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in 15 the above-entitled action. (Dkt. # 1.) Plaintiff reports no current income, no spousal income, no 16 funds in cash or in checking or savings accounts, and no other money received in the last twelve 17 months. (Id. at 1-2.) Plaintiff left blank the portions of the application concerning valuable 18 property, dependents, monthly expenses, and any other information explaining why she cannot 19 pay court fees and costs. (Id.) 20 The district court may permit indigent litigants to proceed IFP upon completion of a 21 proper affidavit of indigence. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). “To qualify for in forma pauperis status, 22 a civil litigant must demonstrate both that the litigant is unable to pay court fees and that the 23 claims he or she seeks to pursue are not frivolous.” Ogunsalu v. Nair, 117 F. App’x 522, 523 1 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 1051 (2005). To meet the first prong of this test, a litigant 2 must show that he or she “cannot because of his [or her] poverty pay or give security for the 3 costs and still be able to provide him[ or her]self and dependents with the necessities of life.” 4 Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948) (internal alterations

5 omitted). 6 Plaintiff’s application omits information necessary for the Court to determine her ability 7 to pay court fees and costs. Specifically, Plaintiff does not disclose whether she owns any 8 valuable property, whether she has any dependents, or the types of monthly expenses she incurs, 9 nor does she provide any explanation as to why she cannot pay court fees and costs. (Dkt. # 1 at 10 1-2.) Under these circumstances, Plaintiff should not be authorized to proceed IFP. 11 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause by July 14, 2026, why this Court 12 should not recommend her IFP application be denied. Alternatively, Plaintiff may submit an 13 amended IFP application by that date, fully completing each portion of the form. The Clerk is 14 directed to re-note Plaintiff’s IFP application (dkt. # 1) for July 14, 2026, and to send copies of

15 this order to Plaintiff and to the Honorable Richard A. Jones. 16 Dated this 23rd day of June, 2026. 17 18 A 19 MICHELLE L. PETERSON United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23