Darnesha Jones v. Zoox, Inc., et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA Darnesha Jones, 2:25-cv-001012-RFB-MDC Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO vs. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (EFC NO. 8) Zoox, Inc., et al., Defendant.

10 Pro se plaintiff Darnesha Jones filed a renewed Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (“IFP”). ECF No. 8. The Court DENIES plaintiff’s IFP application because plaintiff did not comply with the Court’s previous Order (See ECF No. 7), but the Court gives plaintiff one more chance to comply.

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.” The Ninth Circuit has recognized that “there is no formula set forth by statute, regulation, or case law to determine when someone is poor enough to earn IFP status.”

Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1235 (9th Cir. 2015). An applicant need not be destitute to qualify for a waiver of costs and fees, but he must demonstrate that because of his poverty he cannot pay those costs and still provide himself with the necessities of life. Adkins v. E.I DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948).

23 The applicant's affidavit must state the facts regarding the individual's poverty “with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) (citation omitted). If an individual is unable or unwilling to verify his or his poverty, district courts have the discretion to make a factual inquiry into a plaintiff's financial status and to deny a request to proceed in forma pauperis. See, e.g., Marin v. Hahn, 271 Fed.Appx. 578 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the plaintiff's request to proceed IFP because he “failed to verify his poverty adequately”). “Such affidavit must include a complete statement of the plaintiff's personal assets.” Harper v. San Diego City Admin. Bldg., No. 16cv00768 AJB (BLM), 2016 U.S. Dist. 6 LEXIS 192145, at 1 (S.D. Cal. June 9, 2016). Misrepresentation of assets is sufficient grounds in themselves for denying an in forma pauperis application. Cf. Kennedy v. Huibregtse, 831 F.3d 441, 443- 44 (7th Cir. 2016) (affirming dismissal with prejudice after litigant misrepresented assets on in forma pauperis application).

The District of Nevada has adopted three types of IFP applications: a “Prisoner Form” for incarcerated persons and a “Short Form” (AO 240) and “Long Form” (AO 239) for non-incarcerated persons. The Long Form requires more detailed information than the Short Form. The court typically does not order an applicant to submit the Long Form unless the Short Form is inadequate, or it appears that the plaintiff is concealing information about his income for determining whether the applicant qualifies for IFP status. When an applicant is specifically ordered to submit the Long Form, the correct form must be submitted, and the applicant must provide all the information requested in the Long Form so that the court is able to make a fact finding regarding the applicant's financial status. See e.g. Greco v. NYE Cty. Dist. Jude Robert Lane, No. 215CV01370MMDPAL, 2016 WL 7493981, at 3 (D. Nev. Nov.

20 9, 2016), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Greco v. Lake, No. 215CV001370MMDPAL, 2016 WL 7493963 (D. Nev. Dec. 30, 2016).

II. PLAINTIFF'S IFP APPLICATION The Court ordered plaintiff to file the long form, but the plaintiff filed the short form. ECF No. 8.

Plaintiff states that she has no income except she receives $560.00 a month in child support. Id. at 1.

The Court also notes that there are many discrepancies between plaintiff’s first IFP application and her renewed application that she does not explain in the renewed application. For example, in her previous application, she stated that she received unemployment and other benefits, which she does not list (or state she no longer receives) in her new application. See ECF No. 2 at 2 and ECF No. 8 at 1. Plaintiff also does not state her actual expenses for her dependents, but rather she only provides percentages.

6 ECF No. 8 at 2. Plaintiff does not provide any details about her expenses (such as groceries or transportation) in her renewed application. Id. Plaintiff’s new application (ECF No. 8) also omits car- related expenses that she previously disclosed (ECF No. 2) without any explanation for omission.

The Court finds that her IFP application at ECF No. 8 is incomplete and inconsistent with her prior application at ECF No. 2. The Court cannot determine if plaintiff qualifies for IFP status. The Court will allow plaintiff one more opportunity to show that she qualifies for IFP status. Plaintiff must submit the long form application. Plaintiff must answer all questions on the long form with detailed explanations about her income and expenses. Plaintiff cannot leave any questions blank, cross questions out, or respond that a question is “N/A” without an explanation. If plaintiff does not list in her new long form application any car-related expenses or other expenses that she previously disclosed, plaintiff must provide an explanation for such change/omission. In response to question eleven on the long form, plaintiff must explain in detail why she cannot afford the filing fee and why there are inconsistencies on both forms. If plaintiff fails to comply with this Order, her application will be denied with prejudice.

20 IT IS SO ORDERED THAT: 1. Plaintiff’s Application To Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 8) is DENIED without prejudice.

2. By February 4, 2026, plaintiff shall either (1) file the long form application to proceed in forma pauperis as specified in the Court’s order or (2) plaintiff must pay the full fee for filing a civil action.

5 1. Failure to timely comply with this Order may result in a recommendation that this case be 3 dismissed with prejudice. “p. 4 4 It is so ordered. , en | ff Pn, a 5 DATED January 5, 2026. (fe fo tf if \ 6 F if |_ ZX Maximiliano’y Couvillier 7 nited States Mab strate Jugge 9 NOTICE 10 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. Thomas 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 right to appeal the District Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 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.

29 || Failure to comply with this rule may result in dismissal of the action.