1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Jacinto Orozco Villegas, 2:25-cv-00995-APG-MDC

4 Plaintiff(s), ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (EFC NO. 5 vs. 1) 6 Kristi Noem, et al., 7 Defendant(s). 8 Plaintiff Jacinto Orozco Villegas filed an Motion/Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 9 (“IFP”) and a Complaint. ECF Nos. 1 and 1-1. Plaintiff is represented by counsel. The Court DENIES 10 plaintiff’s IFP application without prejudice, with leave to refile. 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 17 qualify for a waiver of costs and fees, but he must demonstrate that because of his poverty he cannot pay 18 those costs and still provide himself with the necessities of life. Adkins v. E.I DuPont de Nemours & 19 Co.,

(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 his 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 11 does not order an applicant to submit the Long Form unless the Short Form is inadequate, or it appears 12 that the plaintiff is concealing information about his income for determining whether the applicant 13 qualifies for IFP status. When an applicant is specifically ordered to submit the Long Form, the correct 14 form must be submitted, and the applicant must provide all the information requested in the Long Form 15 so that the court is able to make a fact finding regarding the applicant's financial status. See e.g. Greco v. 16 NYE Cty. Dist. Jude Robert Lane, No. 215CV01370MMDPAL,

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

(D. Nev. Dec. 30, 2016). 19 II. PLAINTIFF'S IFP APPLICATION 20 Plaintiff filed the short form application. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff states that he is unemployed. 21 However plaintiff also states that he occasionally drives for Uber and Lyft but does not state how often 22 he drives and the income that he receives from Uber or Lyft. Plaintiff states that he has monthly 23 expenses without providing an explanation for how he pays them. Plaintiff alleges in his complaint that 24 he has a car, but his IFP application does not list a car or any assets. The Court finds that his IFP 25 1 application is incomplete. The Court cannot determine if plaintiff qualifies for IFP status. The Court will 2 allow plaintiff another opportunity to show that he qualifies for IFP status. Plaintiff must resubmit the 3 long form application. Plaintiff must answer all questions on the long form with detailed explanations 4 about his income and expenses. Plaintiff cannot leave any questions blank or respond that a question is 5 “N/A” without an explanation. In response to question eleven on the long form, plaintiff must explain in 6 detail why he cannot afford the filing fee. 7 ACCORDINGLY, and for good cause shown, 8 IT IS ORDERED that: 9 1. Plaintiff Jacinto Orozco Villegas’s Application To Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No.1) is 10 DENIED without prejudice. 11 2. By September 12, 2025, plaintiff shall either (1) file the long form application to proceed in 12 forma pauperis as specified in the Court’s order or (2) plaintiff must pay the full fee for filing a 13 civil action. 14 3. Failure to timely comply with this Order may result in a recommendation that this case be 15 dismissed with prejudice. 16 17 DATED August 13, 2025

18

19 _________________________ 20 Hon. Maximiliano D. Couvillier III

United States Magistrate Judge 21

22

23

24 25