1

2

3

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * * 7 Ariel Morales Bracho, Case No. 2:20-cv-01338-JAD-BNW 8 Plaintiff, 9 ORDER v. 10 Las Vegas Justice Court Marshal, 11 Defendant. 12 13 Before the court is plaintiff Ariel Morales Bracho’s application to proceed in forma 14 pauperis (“IFP”) (ECF No. 4), filed on July 30, 2020. 15 Under

, a $350 filing fee and a $50 administrative fee (i.e., $400 total) is 16 required to commence a civil action in district court. Under

(a)(1), the court 17 may authorize the commencement of a civil case “without prepayment of fees and costs or 18 security therefor” if a person submits an affidavit including a statement of all assets that 19 demonstrates the person is unable to pay the fees or give security for them. A party need not be 20 completely destitute to proceed IFP. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.,

, 21 339–40 (1948). But the determination of whether plaintiff has shown an inability to pay is a 22 matter left to the discretion of the Court. See Cal. Men’s Colony v. Rowland,

, 858 23 (9th Cir. 1991) (noting “Section 1915 typically requires the reviewing court to exercise its sound 24 discretion in determining whether the affiant has satisfied the statute’s requirement of 25 indigency”), rev’d on other grounds,

(1993). 26 27 1 Here, plaintiff applied to proceed IFP and subsequently submitted two supplements. ECF 2 Nos. 5 & 6. The Court will determine whether to allow plaintiff to proceed IFP using plaintiff’s 3 latest supplement. 4 The Court has two problems with plaintiff’s application. 5 First, according to plaintiff’s latest supplement, plaintiff takes home $820 each month as a 6 part-time employee. ECF No. 6 at 1. However, plaintiff also states that his last day of work was 7 March 11, 2020.

These two representations are inconsistent with one another, given that 8 plaintiff’s latest supplement was filed on August 14, 2020. 9 Second, under “other sources” of income, plaintiff lists $1,044 in unemployment and 10 $2,164 in “COVID-19 help.” Id. at 1. However, it is unclear to the Court whether this sum 11 represents how much money plaintiff has received in total or how much plaintiff is currently 12 receiving from these sources. The application requires plaintiff to “state the amount you received 13 [from other sources] and what you expect to receive in the future.” Id. at 1 (emphasis added). 14 The Court will require plaintiff to clearly articulate (1) how much money he or she received from 15 these “other sources” and (2) how much money he or she expects to continue to receive from 16 these other sources in the future on a weekly or monthly basis. 17 If plaintiff elects to file a new IFP application, the Court encourages plaintiff to be as clear 18 as possible because it cannot exercise its discretion to grant IFP status until it is fully apprised of 19 plaintiff’s financial circumstances. For now, plaintiff’s application to proceed IFP will be denied, 20 and the Court will not screen the complaint until this IFP matter is resolved. 21 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis 22 (ECF No. 4) is DENIED without prejudice. 23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff must either pay the $350.00 filing fee, plus the 24 $50.00 administrative fee, within 30 days from the date of this order or file a new, completed 25 application to proceed IFP. 26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s failure to timely comply with this order will 27 result in a recommendation to the district judge that this case be dismissed. 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to send plaintiff a new 2 || copy of an IFP application (form AO 240). 3 DATED: September 25, 2020. 4 5 K pr la WOE BRENDA WEKSLER 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Page 3 of 3