Vincent Boyd v. Officer Michael David Grayson, et al.

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Vincent Boyd, Case No. 2:25-cv-01971-GMN-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 Order v. 8 Officer Michael David Grayson, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Vincent Boyd filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 12 1). However, Plaintiff’s application is missing certain information. The Court thus denies 13 Plaintiff’s application without prejudice. 14 I. Discussion. 15 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a plaintiff may bring a civil action “without prepayment of 16 fees or security therefor” if the plaintiff submits a financial affidavit that demonstrates the 17 plaintiff “is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” The Ninth Circuit has recognized 18 that “there is no formula set forth by statute, regulation, or case law to determine when someone 19 is poor enough to earn [in forma pauperis] status.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1235 20 (9th Cir. 2015). An applicant need not be destitute to qualify for a waiver of costs and fees, but 21 he must demonstrate that because of his poverty he cannot pay those costs and still provide 22 himself with the necessities of life. Adkins v. E.I DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 23 (1948). 24 The applicant’s affidavit must state the facts regarding the individual’s poverty “with 25 some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 26 (9th Cir. 1981) (citation omitted). If an individual is unable or unwilling to verify his or her 27 poverty, district courts have the discretion to make a factual inquiry into a plaintiff’s financial 1 Fed.Appx. 578 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by 2 denying the plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis because he “failed to verify his 3 poverty adequately”). “Such affidavit must include a complete statement of the plaintiff’s 4 personal assets.” Harper v. San Diego City Admin. Bldg., No. 16-cv-00768 AJB (BLM), 2016 5 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192145, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 9, 2016). Misrepresentation of assets is sufficient 6 grounds for denying an in forma pauperis application. Cf. Kennedy v. Huibregtse, 831 F.3d 441, 7 443-44 (7th Cir. 2016) (affirming dismissal with prejudice after litigant misrepresented assets on 8 in forma pauperis application). 9 Plaintiff does not completely respond to questions 2 and 3. In response to question 2, 10 Plaintiff appears to indicate that he is not employed because the writes “N/A” in the blank for 11 gross pay or wages and writes “$0” in the blank for take-home pay or wages. But Plaintiff does 12 not otherwise answer that he is not employed. In response to question 3 Plaintiff asserts that he 13 receives “14,200 k” in business earnings “but uncertain about future earnings...” Plaintiff does 14 not indicate whether he received this amount on a monthly basis or on a one time basis. And 15 other than stating “business earnings” Plaintiff does not describe the source of money. 16 Plaintiff’s response to question 5 is incomplete because although he lists a vehicle as an 17 item of value, he does not describe its approximate value. Plaintiff also asserts to have no cash in 18 response to question 4, no bills in response to question 6, and no debts or financial obligations in 19 response to question 8. However, on the docket, Plaintiff includes an address. The Court takes 20 judicial notice of the fact that public records reveal the address is a home. Plaintiff does not 21 provide any details in the application regarding how he pays rent or a mortgage, how he pays 22 utilities or other bills, or how he lives considering his claim to have no money and no bills. 23 Finally, Plaintiff does not fully answer question 7 because, although he asserts that he supports 24 his two daughters with “1/2 total support,” he does not explain what dollar amount that he 25 contributes to their support. 26 The Court finds that Plaintiff has omitted information from the application. As a result, 27 the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff qualifies for in forma pauperis status. The Court 1 further orders that Plaintiff may not respond with a zero or “not applicable” in response to any 2 question without providing an explanation for each of the questions. Plaintiff also may not leave 3 any questions blank. Plaintiff must describe each source of money that he receives, state the 4 amount he received, and what he expects to receive in the future. 5 The Court denies Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis applications without prejudice. The Court 6 gives Plaintiff 30 days to file an updated application. Plaintiff must fully answer all applicable 7 questions and check all applicable boxes. Plaintiff may alternatively pay the filing fee in full. 8 Since the Court denies Plaintiff’s application, it does not screen the complaint at this time. 9 10 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 11 pauperis (ECF No. 1) is denied without prejudice. 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff has until March 25, 2026, to file an updated 13 application to proceed in forma pauperis as specified in this order or pay the filing fee. Failure to 14 timely comply with this order may result in a recommendation to the district judge that this case 15 be dismissed. 16 17 DATED: February 23, 2026 18 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27