1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Rosa Olvera, 4 2:24-cv-00186-MMD-MDC Plaintiff(s), 5 vs. Order 6 American Honda Finance Corporation, et al., 7 Defendant(s). 8 Pending before the Court is plaintiff Rosa Olvera’s application to proceed in forma pauperis 9 (“IFP”). ECF No. 4. The court denies her IFP application. 10 DISCUSSION 11 I. Legal Standard 12 Under

(a)(1), a plaintiff may bring a civil action “without prepayment of fees or 13 security thereof” if the plaintiff submits a financial affidavit that demonstrates the plaintiff “is unable to 14 pay such fees or give security therefor.” The Ninth Circuit has recognized that “there is no formula set 15 forth by statute, regulation, or case law to determine when someone is poor enough to earn IFP status.” 16 Escobedo v. Applebees,

(9th Cir. 2015). An applicant need not be destitute to qualify 17 for a waiver of costs and fees, but he must demonstrate that because of his poverty he cannot pay those 18 costs and still provide himself with the necessities of life. Adkins v. E.I DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335

, 339 (1948). 20 The applicant's affidavit must state the facts regarding the individual's poverty “with some 21 particularity, definiteness and certainty.” United States v. McQuade,

(9th Cir. 1981) 22 (citation omitted). If an individual is unable or unwilling to verify his or her poverty, district courts have 23 the discretion to make a factual inquiry into a plaintiff's financial status and to deny a request to proceed 24 in forma pauperis. See, e.g., Marin v. Hahn,

(9th Cir. 2008) (finding that the district 25 1 court did not abuse its discretion by denying the plaintiff's request to proceed IFP because he “failed to 2 verify his poverty adequately”). “Such affidavit must include a complete statement of the plaintiff's 3 personal assets.” Harper v. San Diego City Admin. Bldg., No. 16cv00768 AJB (BLM), 2016 U.S. Dist.

, at 1 (S.D. Cal. June 9, 2016). Misrepresentation of assets is sufficient grounds in 5 themselves for denying an in forma pauperis application. Cf. Kennedy v. Huibregtse,

, 443- 6 44 (7th Cir. 2016) (affirming dismissal with prejudice after litigant misrepresented assets on in forma 7 pauperis application). 8 The District of Nevada has adopted three types of IFP applications: a “Prisoner Form” for 9 incarcerated persons and a “Short Form” (AO 240) and “Long Form” (AO 239) for non-incarcerated 10 persons. The Long Form requires more detailed information than the Short Form. The court typically does 11 not order an applicant to submit the Long Form unless the Short Form is inadequate, more information is 12 needed, or it appears that the plaintiff is concealing information about his income for determining whether 13 the applicant qualifies for IFP status. When an applicant is specifically ordered to submit the Long Form, 14 the correct form must be submitted, and the applicant must provide all the information requested in the 15 Long Form so that the court is able to make a fact finding regarding the applicant's financial status. See 16 e.g. Greco v. NYE Cty. Dist. Jude Robert Lane, No. 215CV01370MMDPAL,

, at 3 (D. 17 Nev. Nov. 9, 2016), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Greco v. Lake, No. 18 215CV001370MMDPAL,

(D. Nev. Dec. 30, 2016). 19 II. Analysis 20 Plaintiff previously completed a short-form IFP but left a majority of the application blank. ECF 21 No. 1. The Court denied her application and ordered her to complete the long-form IFP application. ECF 22 No. 3. The Court warned plaintiff that she could not leave any questions blank.

Plaintiff filed a new 23 IFP application (ECF No. 4), but her new application is also deficient. To begin, Plaintiff answered all 24 questions with either “$0” or “N/A”. 25 1 Additionally, plaintiff’s application contains discrepancies. For example, a public records search 2 shows that plaintiff current owns, and has registered in her name, a Honda CR-V. However, plaintiff failed 3 to disclose the vehicle in her IFP application. ECF No. 4 at 3. In addition, plaintiff failed to disclose 4 information regarding her real estate property, which matches the address on record.

Plaintiff makes 5 no mention of her utility payments, which is apparently inconsistent with the public records showing that 6 plaintiff has residential property in her name. 7 Given that plaintiff failed to disclose her complete financial information, the Court finds it cannot 8 make a decision on her IFP status at this time. The Court will give plaintiff the benefit of the doubt and 9 allow her one final chance to complete a long-form IFP application. Plaintiff must disclose all financial 10 information. If plaintiff no longer owns the vehicle or the house, she must state so in the application, with 11 an explanation as to the discrepancies. 12 ACCORDINGLY, 13 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff must complete a new long-form IFP application or pay the 14 fulfilling fee for filing a civil action by Monday, April 15, 2024 Failure to comply may result in a 15 recommendation that the case be dismissed. 16 NOTICE 17 Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and 18 recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk 19 of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal 20 may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified 21 time. Thomas v. Arn,

(1985). 22 This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) failure 23 to properly address and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District Court's order 24 and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst,

, 1157 25 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist.,

, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Pursuant to LR 1 3-1, the plaintiff must immediately file written notification with the court of any change of address. 2 || The notification must include proof of service upon each opposing party’s attorney, or upon the opposing 3 || party if the party is unrepresented by counsel. Failure to comply with this rule may result in dismissal of 4 || the action. 5 6 DATED this 15" day of March 2024. L pp 4 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. Y TY ip pf

10 United States Magistrate Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25