(PS) Newanforbi v. State of California

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BRENDAN NGEHSI NEWANFORBI, Case No. 2:25-cv-01460-DC-CSK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 13 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 15 Defendants. (ECF No. 2) 17 Plaintiff Brendan Ngehsi Newanforbi is proceeding in this action pro se.1 Plaintiff has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

19 (ECF No. 2.) Plaintiff’s IFP application will be denied without prejudice because Plaintiff’s IFP affidavit is insufficient.

21 I. LEGAL STANDARDS 22 All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in any district court of the United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a party's failure to pay the filing fee only if the party is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); Rodriguez v. This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c).

1 Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). To qualify to proceed in forma pauperis, the litigant must submit an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets they possess.

3 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The affidavit must also state that the person is unable to pay the fees or give security. Id. The affidavit must provide “sufficient details concerning [the applicant’s] income, assets, and expenditures[.]” Williams v. Cnty. of Ventura, 443 F.

6 App’x 232, 233 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) (an affidavit claiming poverty in support of a motion made under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 must state the relevant facts “with some particularity, definiteness, and certainty”).

10 II. DISCUSSION 11 Plaintiff’s IFP application indicates he receives $454 in gross pay or wages and $374 in take-home pay or wages biweekly. ECF No. 2 ¶ 2. However, Plaintiff has failed to disclose whether he has received other income during the past 12 months. See ECF No. 2 ¶ 3. Because of these omissions, Plaintiff's IFP application fails to establish that he is entitled to prosecute this case without paying the required fees. Plaintiff will be provided an opportunity to file an amended IFP application. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is DENIED without prejudice to its renewal in proper form.

19 III. CONCLUSION 20 For the reasons explained above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 21 1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is DENIED 22 without prejudice; and 23 2. Plaintiff may file his renewed IFP application within thirty (30) days from the 24 date of this order. If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with this order, the 25 undersigned may recommend that this action be dismissed for failure to 26 prosecute.

27 / / / / / / | Dated: August 25, 2025 4 - S .

2 tN L— 3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE || 4, newa1460.25