UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3

4 Claudia Elaine Guillen, 2:25-cv-00632-JAD-MDC 5 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO 6 vs. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF NO. 2) AND DENYING MOTION FOR PRO 7 SE LITIGANT TO FILE Kens Foods Inc, ELECTRONICALLY (ECF NO. 4) 8 Defendant. WITHOUT PREJUDICE 9

10 Pro se plaintiff Claudia Elaine Guillen filed an Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis 11 (“IFP”) and a Motion for Pro Se Litigant to File Electronically (“Motion”). ECF Nos. 2 and 4. The 12 Court DENIES plaintiff’s IFP application and the Motion without prejudice, with leave to refile. 13 I. LEGAL STANDARD 14 Under

(a)(1), a plaintiff may bring a civil action “without prepayment of fees or 15 security thereof” if the plaintiff submits a financial affidavit that demonstrates the plaintiff “is unable to 16 pay such fees or give security therefor.” The Ninth Circuit has recognized that “there is no formula set 17 forth by statute, regulation, or case law to determine when someone is poor enough to earn IFP status.” 18 Escobedo v. Applebees,

(9th Cir. 2015). An applicant need not be destitute to 19 20 qualify for a waiver of costs and fees, but he must demonstrate that because of his poverty he cannot pay 21 those costs and still provide himself with the necessities of life. Adkins v. E.I DuPont de Nemours & 22 Co.,

(1948). 23 The applicant's affidavit must state the facts regarding the individual's poverty “with some 24 particularity, definiteness and certainty.” United States v. McQuade,

(9th Cir. 1981) 25 (citation omitted). If an individual is unable or unwilling to verify his or her poverty, district courts have the discretion to make a factual inquiry into a plaintiff's financial status and to deny a request to proceed 1 in forma pauperis. See, e.g., Marin v. Hahn,

(9th Cir. 2008) (finding that the district 2 court did not abuse its discretion by denying the plaintiff's request to proceed IFP because he “failed to 3 4 verify his poverty adequately”). “Such affidavit must include a complete statement of the plaintiff's 5 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 7 themselves for denying an in forma pauperis application. Cf. Kennedy v. Huibregtse,

, 443- 8 44 (7th Cir. 2016) (affirming dismissal with prejudice after litigant misrepresented assets on in forma 9 pauperis application). 10 The District of Nevada has adopted three types of IFP applications: a “Prisoner Form” for 11 incarcerated persons and a “Short Form” (AO 240) and “Long Form” (AO 239) for non-incarcerated 12 persons. The Long Form requires more detailed information than the Short Form. The court typically 13 does not order an applicant to submit the Long Form unless the Short Form is inadequate, or it appears 14 that the plaintiff is concealing information about his income for determining whether the applicant 15 qualifies for IFP status. When an applicant is specifically ordered to submit the Long Form, the correct 16 17 form must be submitted, and the applicant must provide all the information requested in the Long Form 18 so that the court is able to make a fact finding regarding the applicant's financial status. See e.g. Greco v. 19 NYE Cty. Dist. Jude Robert Lane, No. 215CV01370MMDPAL,

, at 3 (D. Nev. Nov. 20 9, 2016), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Greco v. Lake, No. 215CV001370MMDPAL, 21

(D. Nev. Dec. 30, 2016). 22 II. PLAINTIFF'S IFP APPLICATION 23 Plaintiff filed the short form IFP application. ECF No. 2. Plaintiff states that in the last twelve 24 months, she received $90,000 in wages and takes home $2,200 bi-weekly.

. She states that she 25 2 has almost $3,000 in the bank and she has nearly $6,275 a month in bills.

. She identifies two car 1 monthly payment of $500 and $800and monthly insurance payment of $560, however, in response to 2 question number four, which asks if she owns a car, she states “no” she does not own a car or anything 3 4 else of value.

She also states that she went through a bankruptcy in 2023, but she does not mention if 5 the bankruptcy is complete or is still pending. Plaintiff has a high income, but it appears that her 6 monthly bills exceed her income. 7 Given the plaintiff’s high income, and her lack of an explanation regarding how she pays her 8 high bills, and her response that she does not own a car in one question but lists car expenses, the Court 9 finds that her IFP application is incomplete. The Court cannot determine if plaintiff qualifies for IFP 10 status. The Court will allow plaintiff another opportunity to show that she qualifies for IFP status. 11 Plaintiff must submit the long form application. Plaintiff must answer all questions on the long form 12 with detailed explanations about her income and expenses. Plaintiff cannot leave any questions blank or 13 respond that a question is “N/A” without an explanation. In response to question eleven on the long 14 form, plaintiff must explain in detail why she cannot afford the filing fee despite her high income, how 15 she pays her bills, and whether her bankruptcy is complete. 16 17 III. MOTION FOR PRO SE LITIGANT TO FILE ELECTRONICALLY 18 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(d)(3)(B) allows a person not represented by an attorney to file 19 and sign documents electronically if allowed by court order or local rule. Under Local Rule IC 2-1(b), a 20 pro se litigant may request the Court's authorization to register as a filer in a specific case. Since the 21 Court denies plaintiff’s IFP application and has not yet screened the complaint, the Court denies 22 plaintiff’s request to file electronically without prejudice, with leave to amend if plaintiff’s case survives 23 screening. 24 // 25 3 // 1 5 IT IS SO ORDERED THAT:

3 1. Plaintiff's Application To Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No.2) is DENIED without 4 prejudice. 5 1. Plaintiff's Motion for Pro Se Litigant to File Electronically (ECF No. 4) is DENIED without 6 prejudice. Plaintiff may renew her request to file electronically if her case survives screening. 7 2. By August 28, 2025, plaintiff shall either (1) file the long form application to proceed in forma 8 pauperis as specified in the Court’s order or (2) plaintiff must pay the full fee for filing a civil 9 . action. 10 3. Failure to timely comply with this Order may result in a recommendation that this case be 11 dismissed with prejudice. 12 4 a} — It is so ordered. fe a 13 oboe om DATED July 31, 2025. (fe fo 14 ff ' Ff 1 (fe iF ° “Hon. Maximilian D. Convilleet I 16 a United States Magistrate Judge 17 NOTICE 18 9 Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and

50 recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk

31 || of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal 29 || may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified 23 || time. Thomas v. Arn,

(1985). This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file 24 || objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues 25

waives the right to appeal the District Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the 1 District Court. Martinez v. Ylst,

(9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. 2 Dist.,

, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Pursuant to LR IA 3-1, plaintiffs must immediately file written 3 4 notification with the court of any change of address. The notification must include proof of service upon 5 each opposing party’s attorney, or upon the opposing party if the party is unrepresented by counsel. 6 Failure to comply with this rule may result in dismissal of the action. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 5