1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROSENDO GONZALEZ, Jr., No. 2:25–cv–02937–DAD-SCR 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER 13 v. 14 EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES LLC, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this matter, which is referred to the undersigned pursuant 18 to Local Rule 302(c)(21) and

(b)(1). Before the court is Plaintiff’s motion for 19 leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See

(authorizing the commencement of an 20 action “without prepayment of fees or security” by a person that is unable to pay such fees). ECF 21 No. 2. The Court will deny the motion and allow Plaintiff leave to file a renewed motion or pay 22 the filing fee. 23 The motion makes an insufficient showing to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). The 24 Ninth Circuit has recognized “one need not be absolutely destitute to obtain benefits” of the IFP 25 statute. Escobedo v. Applebees,

(9th Cir. 2015). However, “a plaintiff 26 seeking IFP status must allege poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” Id. 27 (internal citation and quotation omitted). 28 Plaintiff states that his monthly income is zero. ECF No. 2 at 1-2. Plaintiff also lists that 1 | he currently has $14,000 in his checking account. /d. at 2. Plaintiff has monthly expenses that 2 || total $1,350, which includes $100/month for recreation/entertainment and $150/month for new 3 | clothing. /d. at 4. Given that Plaintiff has $14,000 in the bank, it appears he is capable of paying 4 | the $405 filing fee for this matter. Additionally, Plaintiffs monthly expenses include amounts for 5 || recreation and entertainment. See Kamau v. Ertifai,

, * 2 (D. Az. Aug. 14, 6 || 2025) “Ultimately, although the disclosed monthly expenses are greater than the disclosed 7 || monthly income, it does not appear that all of the disclosed monthly expenses fall within the 8 | ‘necessities of life’ that justify IFP status.”); Valentine v. Granville Realty, Inc.,

|| 1839935, at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 3, 2025) (“Courts have consistently held that IFP status should not 10 | be granted where an applicant can pay the filing fee with acceptable sacrifice to other expenses.”’). 11 Plaintiff's motion will therefore be denied. If Plaintiffs financial circumstances have 12 | substantially changed since the filing of the motion, or he believes he omitted necessary 13 | information, Plaintiff may file a renewed motion to proceed IFP. If he does so, Plaintiff shall take 14 || care to fully complete the form. 15 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 16 1. Plaintiffs motion to proceed IFP (ECF No. 2) is DENIED. 17 2. Plaintiff may file a renewed motion to proceed IFP that addresses the issues set forth 18 herein within 21 days of the date of this Order. 19 3. Alternatively, Plaintiff may pay the filing fee. 20 4. If Plaintiff does not supplement the application or pay the filing fee within 21 days, 21 the Court will recommend that this action be dismissed without prejudice. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 || DATED: December 11, 2025. 24 25

26 SEAN C. RIORDAN 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28