Valerie Kate Osler v. Enterprise Holdings, Inc., et al.

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Valerie Kate Osler, Case No. 2:26-cv-00860-APG-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 Order v. 8 Enterprise Holdings, Inc., et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Valerie Kate Osler has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis 12 (which means, to proceed without paying the filing fee). (ECF No. 1). However, Plaintiff’s 13 application is missing certain information. The Court thus denies Plaintiff’s application without 14 prejudice. 15 I. Discussion. 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 Plaintiff leaves both question 1 and the first part of question 2 blank. While the Court 11 could liberally construe Plaintiff’s application as indicating that she is not incarcerated, Plaintiff’s 12 responses to the question must make this clear so that the Court does not have to guess. Plaintiff 13 also claims to make $1.16 in gross pay or wages and $1.02 in take home pay or wages biweekly. 14 But Plaintiff does not list her employer’s name and address in response to question 2. This 15 information is particularly absent given the fact that Plaintiff’s reported wages are unusually low 16 and it is not clear to the Court whether the low reported amounts are the result of a typographical 17 error. 18 Given these issues, the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff qualifies for in forma 19 pauperis status. The Court will give Plaintiff one opportunity to file a complete in forma 20 pauperis application. The Court further orders that Plaintiff may not respond with a zero or “not 21 applicable” in response to any question without providing an explanation for each of the 22 questions. Plaintiff also may not leave any questions blank. Plaintiff must describe each source 23 of money that she receives, state the amount she received, and what she expects to receive in the 24 future. 25 The Court denies Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application without prejudice. The Court 26 gives Plaintiff 30 days to file an updated application. Plaintiff must fully answer all applicable 27 questions and check all applicable boxes. Plaintiff may alternatively pay the filing fee in full. 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 2 pauperis (ECF No. 1) is denied without prejudice. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff has until May 26, 2026, to file an updated 4 application to proceed in forma pauperis as specified in this order or pay the filing fee. Failure to 5 timely comply with this order may result in a recommendation to the district judge that this case 6 be dismissed. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to send Plaintiff 8 a copy of this order and of the Short Form application to proceed in forma pauperis and its 9 instructions.1 10 11 DATED: April 23, 2026, 12 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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-