Grant v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA CLAUDE GRANT, 7 Case No.: 2:20-cv-01629-JAD-NJK Plaintiff(s), 8 ORDER v. 9 [Docket No. 4] LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., 11 Defendant(s).

12 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and submitted a complaint in an effort to initiate this case. Docket No. 1. On September 9, 2020, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Docket No. 4. That application indicates that Plaintiff makes several hundred dollars more per month than he needs to cover expenses. See id. at 1-2, 4. As such, it is not clear that Plaintiff will qualify to proceed in forma pauperis. Cf. Flores v. Colvin, 2014 U.S. Dist. Lexis 93236, at *4-5 (D. Nev. May 22, 2014) (finding in forma pauperis status not warranted given monthly income of $1,900 exceeded monthly expenses by $150 and was above the amount of income identified in the federal poverty guidelines), adopted 2014 U.S. Dist. Lexis 93234 (D. Nev. July 9, 2014). The Court will not rule on the merits of the application at this time, however.

21 Instead, Plaintiff’s application indicates that he is trying to gather money for litigation expenses, but notes that he does not currently have the money to meet the deadline to pay the filing fee that is now set at September 25, 2020. See Docket No. 4 at 5. The Court construes this application as seeking an extension of that deadline so that Plaintiff can pay the filing fee.1 As so construed, the application will be granted.

1 As a litigant proceeding without an attorney, the Court construes Plaintiff’s filings liberally. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).

1 In light of the above, the application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED without 2|| prejudice. The deadline to pay the filing fee or file a renewed application to proceed in forma 3]| pauperis is EXTENDED to November 5, 2020.

4 IT IS SO ORDERED.

5 Dated: September 10, 2020 .

United States Magistrate Judge