Pugh v. Best Buy

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE DAMIEN DESHAWN PUGH, 9 Plaintiff, Case No. C25-884-JLR 10 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE BEST BUY, 12 Defendant.

14 Plaintiff has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in the above-entitled action. (Dkt. # 6.) In the IFP application, Plaintiff states he is unemployed, has not received money from any source in the past twelve months, has no cash or funds in bank accounts, owns no valuable property, and has no dependents. (Id. at 1-2.) He left blank the sections of the application requesting information about his monthly expenses and any other information reasons why he cannot pay court fees and costs. (Id. at 2.)

20 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.”

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

6 Here, Plaintiff’s IFP application omits information necessary for the Court to determine whether he is able to afford court fees. Plaintiff fails to explain how he can meet his basic living needs, such as food and housing, given his lack of income or savings. Without further information, Plaintiff should not be authorized to proceed IFP.

10 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause by July 15, 2025, why this Court should not recommend that his IFP application be denied. In the alternative, Plaintiff may file an amended IFP application clarifying the matters noted above by that date. The Clerk is directed to re-note Plaintiff’s IFP application (dkt. # 6) for July 15, 2025, and to send copies of this order to Plaintiff, along with a blank IFP application, and to the Honorable James L. Robart.

15 Dated this 1st day of July, 2025.

A 17 MICHELLE L. PETERSON United States Magistrate Judge