Tinika Se'Cal Warren v. Courtyard Resource Ctr, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: December 30, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-02412
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3

4 Tinika Se'Cal Warren, 2:25-cv-02412-GMN-MDC 5 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO 6 vs. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF NO. 2) 7 Courtyard Resource Ctr, et al., 8 Defendant. 9

10 Pro se plaintiff Tinika Se’Cal Warren filed an Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis 11 (“IFP”). ECF No. 2. The Court DENIES plaintiff’s IFP application without prejudice, with leave to 12 refile. 13 I. LEGAL STANDARD 14 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a plaintiff may bring a civil action “without prepayment of fees or 15 security thereof” if the plaintiff submits a financial affidavit that demonstrates the plaintiff “is unable to 16 pay such fees or give security therefor.” The Ninth Circuit has recognized that “there is no formula set 17 forth by statute, regulation, or case law to determine when someone is poor enough to earn IFP status.” 18 Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1235 (9th Cir. 2015). An applicant need not be destitute to 19 20 qualify for a waiver of costs and fees, but he must demonstrate that because of his poverty he cannot pay 21 those costs and still provide himself with the necessities of life. Adkins v. E.I DuPont de Nemours & 22 Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). 23 The applicant's affidavit must state the facts regarding the individual's poverty “with some 24 particularity, definiteness and certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) 25 (citation omitted). If an individual is unable or unwilling to verify his poverty, district courts have the discretion to make a factual inquiry into a plaintiff's financial status and to deny a request to proceed in 1 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 4 verify his poverty adequately”). “Such affidavit must include a complete statement of the plaintiff's 5 personal assets.” Harper v. San Diego City Admin. Bldg., No. 16cv00768 AJB (BLM), 2016 U.S. Dist. 6 LEXIS 192145, at 1 (S.D. Cal. June 9, 2016). Misrepresentation of assets is sufficient grounds in 7 themselves for denying an in forma pauperis application. Cf. Kennedy v. Huibregtse, 831 F.3d 441, 443- 8 44 (7th Cir. 2016) (affirming dismissal with prejudice after litigant misrepresented assets on in forma 9 pauperis application). 10 The District of Nevada has adopted three types of IFP applications: a “Prisoner Form” for 11 incarcerated persons and a “Short Form” (AO 240) and “Long Form” (AO 239) for non-incarcerated 12 persons. The Long Form requires more detailed information than the Short Form. The court typically 13 does not order an applicant to submit the Long Form unless the Short Form is inadequate, or it appears 14 that the plaintiff is concealing information about his income for determining whether the applicant 15 qualifies for IFP status. When an applicant is specifically ordered to submit the Long Form, the correct 16 17 form must be submitted, and the applicant must provide all the information requested in the Long Form 18 so that the court is able to make a fact finding regarding the applicant's financial status. See e.g. Greco v. 19 NYE Cty. Dist. Jude Robert Lane, No. 215CV01370MMDPAL, 2016 WL 7493981, at 3 (D. Nev. Nov. 20 9, 2016), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Greco v. Lake, No. 215CV001370MMDPAL, 21 2016 WL 7493963 (D. Nev. Dec. 30, 2016). 22 II. PLAINTIFF'S IFP APPLICATION 23 Plaintiff filed the short form IFP application. ECF No. 2. The Court notes that plaintiff is a 24 frequent filer in this Court, and she does not always include the same information in her IFP 25 2 applications.1 In the instant application, plaintiff alleges that she is awaiting social security but does not 1 give any information on how much money in benefits she would receive monthly. ECF No. 2 at 1. She 2 states that she has no money and no income. Id. at 2. In response to question five which asks about 3 4 assets, she appears to state that she is entitled to money from her grandfather’s estate, but she does not 5 provide any additional information about this potential inheritance. Id. Plaintiff appears to suggest she is 6 homeless, but it is not clear from the application. 7 The Court cannot determine if plaintiff qualifies for IFP status. The Court will allow plaintiff 8 another opportunity to show that she qualifies for IFP status. Plaintiff must resubmit the long form 9 application. Plaintiff must answer all questions on the long form with detailed explanations about her 10 income and expenses. Plaintiff cannot leave any questions blank or respond that a question is “N/A” 11 without an explanation. Plaintiff must also sign the long form under penalty of perjury. Plaintiff may 12 alternatively pay the filing fee. 13

16 17 18 19 20 21 // 22 23 1 For example, in one of plaintiff’s recent IFP applications, she stated she had previously worked for two different 24 companies but did not state how much income she earned. See Warren v. Epps et al, 2:25-cv-02056-GMN-MDC at ECF Nos. 4 and 6 (D. Nev. December 2025). Plaintiff does not list any former companies on the instant IFP 25 application. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED THAT:

5 1. Plaintiff's Application To Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 1) is DENIED without

3 prejudice. 4 2. By January 29, 2026, plaintiff shall either (1) file the long form application to proceed in forma 5 pauperis as specified in the Court’s order or (2) plaintiff must pay the full fee for filing a civil 6 action. 7 3. Failure to timely comply with this Order may result in a recommendation that this case be 8 dismissed with prejudice. ° It is so ordered. DATED December 30, 2025. 7 Ay _—

Le {/\ 13 / faon. Maximilian D. C puvillignfll 14 L United Judge

15 NOTICE 16 Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk

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

59 || may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified 31 || time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file 29 || objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues 23 || waives the right to appeal the District Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the 24 || District Court. Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. 25

Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Pursuant to LR IA 3-1, plaintiffs must immediately file written 1 notification with the court of any change of address. The notification must include proof of service upon 2 each opposing party’s attorney, or upon the opposing party if the party is unrepresented by counsel. 3 4 Failure to comply with this rule may result in dismissal of the action. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 5