Bernard May v. Clark County

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA Bernard May, 2:25-cv-01673-CDS-MDC Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO vs. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF NO. 1) Clark County, Defendant.

10 Pro se plaintiff Bernard May filed an Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (“IFP”). ECF No. 1. The Court DENIES plaintiff’s IFP application without prejudice, with leave to refile.

12 I. LEGAL STANDARD Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a plaintiff may bring a civil action “without prepayment of fees or security thereof” if the plaintiff submits a financial affidavit that demonstrates the plaintiff “is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” If the plaintiff is a “prisoner” as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 16 1915(h), as amended by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), he remains obligated to pay the entire fee in installments, regardless of whether his action is ultimately dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 18 1915(b)(1) & (2); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 (9th Cir. 2002).

20 Under the PLRA, a prisoner seeking leave to proceed IFP must submit a “certified copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for the prisoner for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 23 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 2005). From the certified trust account statement, the Court must assess an initial payment of 20% of (a) the average monthly deposits in the account for the past six months, or (b) the average monthly balance in the account for the past six months, whichever is greater, unless the prisoner has no assets. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). The institution having custody of the prisoner must collect subsequent payments, assessed at 20% of the preceding month's income, in any month in which the prisoner's account exceeds $10, and forward those payments to the Court until the entire filing fee is paid. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

5 II. PLAINTIFF'S IFP APPLICATION 6 Plaintiff is currently incarcerated.1 Plaintiff filed an IFP form from Nevada Justice Court rather than the Prisoner Form IFP application. Plaintiff did not attach a certified copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint, as required by the PLRA. The Court finds that his IFP application is incomplete. The Court cannot determine if plaintiff qualifies for IFP status. The Court will allow plaintiff another opportunity to show that he qualifies for IFP status. Plaintiff must submit the Prisoner IFP form approved by this Court with a copy of his trust fund account statement. Plaintiff may alternatively pay the full filing fee upfront. // // // // // // // Plaintiff lists a return address on his IFP application that indicates he is not incarcerated, but he filed this case through the High Desert State Prison Law Library, as reflected on the docket. The Court cautions plaintiff against providing a false address on future filings, as it will not help him avoid court fees or costs associated with the IFP application.

IT IS SO ORDERED THAT: 5 1. Plaintiff's Application To Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 1) is DENIED without 3 prejudice.

4 2. By November 3, 2025, plaintiff shall either (1) file the Prisoner IFP application with a copy of 5 his trust fund account statement as specified in the Court’s order or (2) plaintiff must pay the full 6 fee for filing a civil action upfront.

7 3. Failure to timely comply with this Order may result in a recommendation that this case be 8 dismissed with prejudice. ° DATED October 2, 2025. fi 2 ae United States Aagistratl2 Juage NOTICE » Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified time. May v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file objections || within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues waives the 29 to appeal the District Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court.

23 || Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 24 || 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Pursuant to LR IA 3-1, plaintiffs must immediately file written notification with the court of any change of address. The notification must include proof of service upon each opposing party’s attorney, or upon the opposing party if the party is unrepresented by counsel. Failure to comply with this rule may result in dismissal of the action.