IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI‘I

JIMMY TATE, Case No. 25-cv-00350-DKW-RT JALECEYA TATE, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT Plaintiffs, PREJUDICE APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT v. PREPAYMENT OF FEES OR COSTS1 GRADY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL,

Defendant.

On August 14, 2025, Plaintiffs Jimmy and Jaleceya Tate, proceeding without counsel, filed a Complaint against Defendant Grady Memorial Hospital, asserting numerous claims allegedly arising out of the “unlawful[] access and distribut[ion]” of “confidential medical records….” Dkt. No. 1. At the same time, one of the Plaintiffs signed a document entitled, “ex parte motion to waive filing fees and surcharges under Hawai‘i Revised Statutes Chapter 607” (“IFP Application”). Dkt. No. 2. For the reasons set forth below, the IFP Application is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to re-filing. Federal courts can authorize the commencement of any suit without prepayment of fees or security by a person who submits an affidavit that

1Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(c), the Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without a hearing. demonstrates an inability to pay. See

(a)(1). “[A] plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty with some particularity, definiteness and

certainty.” Escobedo v. Applebees,

(9th Cir. 2015). While Section 1915(a) does not require a litigant to demonstrate absolute destitution, Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co.,

(1948), an applicant

must nonetheless show an inability “to pay such fees or give security therefor,”

(a). Here, there are at least two deficiencies with the IFP Application that must be corrected before the foregoing inquiry can occur. First, although there are two

Plaintiffs in this case, with the names of both appearing at the top of the IFP Application, the document contains only a single, illegible signature. See Dkt. No. 2 at 2. Second, while it is again unclear, the information provided in the IFP

Application appears to only concern one of the two Plaintiffs. See generally

(answering questions phrased in the singular). This is insufficient. Specifically, should Plaintiffs wish to proceed without prepaying fees or costs in this action, they must file individual and separate IFP applications and demonstrate that they both

have an inability to pay said fees or costs. See, e.g., Ellis-Sanders v. Guardian Piazza D’Oro LLC,

, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Sep. 4, 2024) (citing cases for the proposition that “each named plaintiff must submit separate applications to proceed as a pauper before a court will grant multiple plaintiffs in forma pauperis status in one action.”) (quotation omitted).

Additionally, although proceeding in federal court, the IFP Application was submitted using a State court application for the same relief. This is also insufficient, not the least because the application used does not include matters, such

as monthly expenses, that would provide a more complete picture of an applicant’s financial ability to pay fees or costs.2 Accordingly, should Plaintiffs wish to proceed without prepaying fees or costs in this action, they must use the IFP application approved by this Court, two copies of which will be sent to the mailing

address on file for the Plaintiffs. Each individual Plaintiff must answer all questions on said application completely and accurately, and each Plaintiff must sign the respective form each submits.

For these reasons, the IFP Application, Dkt. No. 2, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiffs may have until September 16, 2025 to either (1) pay the filing fee for this action, or (2) file two new IFP applications, one for each Plaintiff. Plaintiffs are cautioned that the failure to either pay the filing fee or file

two new IFP applications by September 16, 2025, consistent with the guidance above, will result in the automatic dismissal of this action without prejudice.

2The IFP Application cites Hawai‘i Revised Statutes Chapter 607, though State law is irrelevant to whether Plaintiffs are entitled to proceed without prepayment of fees or costs in federal court. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to mail Plaintiffs two blank Applications to Proceed In District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (AO 240). IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 2, 2025 at Honolulu, Hawai‘1.

me Derrick K. Watson a Chief United States District Judge

Tate et al. v. Grady Memorial Hospital; Case No. 25-cv-00350-DKW-RT; ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF FEES OR COSTS