Garkov v. The Pentagon

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE GEORGI BLAZHEV GARKOV, 9 Plaintiff, Case No. C25-90-JHC 10 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE THE PENTAGON, et al., 12 Defendants.

14 Plaintiff Georgi Blazhev Garkov has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in the above-entitled action. (Dkt. # 1.) In the IFP application, Plaintiff discloses having received $5,000.00 in the past twelve months. (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff lists monthly expenses of $350.00, which he states are paid for by a United Nations agency. (Id. at 1-2.) Plaintiff reports having no dependents and no valuable property. (Id. at 2.) When asked to provide additional information explaining why he cannot pay court fees and costs, Plaintiff states that he has no other source of income. (Id.) Plaintiff did not complete the portion of the application asking for the amount of cash he has on hand and in savings and checking accounts. (See id.) 22 The district court may permit indigent litigants to proceed IFP upon completion of a proper affidavit of indigence. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). “To qualify for in forma pauperis status, a civil litigant must demonstrate both that the litigant is unable to pay court fees and that the claims he or she seeks to pursue are not frivolous.” Ogunsalu v. Nair, 117 F. App’x 522, 523 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 1051 (2005). To meet the first prong of this test, a litigant must show that he or she “cannot because of his [or her] poverty pay or give security for the costs and still be able to provide him[ or her]self and dependents with the necessities of life.”

6 Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948) (internal alterations omitted).

8 Plaintiff’s application omits information necessary for the Court to determine his ability to pay court fees and costs. Specifically, Plaintiff does not disclose whether he has available cash or funds in checking or savings accounts that could be used to pay the $405.00 filing fee. (See dkt. # 1 at 2.) Under these circumstances, Plaintiff should not be authorized to proceed IFP.

12 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause by February 19, 2025, why this Court should not recommend his IFP application be denied. Alternatively, Plaintiff may submit an amended IFP application by that date, explaining his circumstances more fully. The Clerk is directed to re-note Plaintiff’s IFP application (dkt. # 1) for February 20, 2025, and to send copies of this order to Plaintiff and to the Honorable John H. Chun.

17 Dated this 15th day of January, 2025.

A 19 MICHELLE L. PETERSON United States Magistrate Judge