Balik v. City of Las Vegas

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA JEREMIAH WILLIAM BALIK, Case No.: 2:21-cv-01701-RFB-NJK 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. [Docket No. 13] CITY OF LAS VEGAS, et al., 13 Defendants.

14 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Docket No. 13. Plaintiff submits that he was allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in this action in Nevada state court prior to its removal to this Court. Id. at 3-4. Plaintiff therefore asks this Court to allow him to proceed in forma pauperis so that he can apprise himself of service by the United States Marshals pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3). Id. at 1-4.

19 Defendants have removed the instant case to this Court and paid the filing fee. Docket No. 1. Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that it is proper for the Court to make an in forma pauperis determination for a non-removing, or non-filing, party. Further, Plaintiff fails to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis on this Court’s required form. See Docket. While pro se filings must be construed more liberally than those filed with the assistance of counsel, see Blaisdell v. Frappiea, 729 F.3d 1237, 1241 (9th Cir. 2013), the Court only considers well-developed arguments. See Kor Media Grp., LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 582 n.3 (D. Nev. 2013).

26 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion without prejudice. Docket No. 13.

27 Any future motion must be supported by supporting points, authorities, and argument demonstrating that it is proper for the Court to enter an order allowing Plaintiff to proceed in forma 1} pauperis under the circumstances of this case. Additionally, any future request must include a 2|| complete application to proceed in forma pauperis using this Court’s standard form, which can be found on the Court’s website.

4 IT IS SO ORDERED.

5 Dated: October 22, 2021 7 Unite Stat Mo sistrate Judge gi: g 8 □ 1]