Hernandez et al v. Sandoval et al

Filing 2

ORDER Denying without prejudice 1 Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 11/21/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3
4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

***

6

NORA HERNANDEZ, et al,

7
8

Plaintiffs,
v.

9
10
11

BRIAN SANDOVAL, et al,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:12-cv-01933-PMP-VCF
ORDER AND
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
(Motion/Application to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis #1)

12
Before the court is plaintiffs Nora Hernandez and Robin M. Lee’s Motion/Application to
13
Proceed In Forma Pauperis (#1).
14
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), a filing fee of $350.00 is required to commence a civil action
15
in federal district court. The court may authorize the commencement of an action without prepayment
16
of fees and costs or security therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement
17
showing the person is unable to pay such costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Although a plaintiff may
18
appear pro se on his own behalf, an individual “has no authority to appear as an attorney for others than
19
himself.” Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting C.E. Pope Equity
20
Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987)). Thus, each individual plaintiff must have
21
his own application sworn to by him and containing his financial information demonstrating that he is
22
unable to pay the costs of commencing the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); see Williams v. Pierce
23
County Board of Commissioners, et al, 267 F.2d 866 (9th Cir. 1959).
24
Plaintiffs Hernandez and Lee filed a single motion/application to proceed in forma pauperis on
25
November 9, 2012. (#1). The names of both plaintiffs are listed on the application, but only plaintiff
26

1

Lee’s signature is on the form. Id. It is unclear whether the financial information listed belongs to one

2

or both plaintiffs. Id. Additionally, the application states that plaintiffs are incarcerated, even though

3

only plaintiff Hernandez is actually incarcerated. Id. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ request to proceed in

4

forma pauperis is denied without prejudice pursuant to § 1915(a). Plaintiffs will each need to fill out

5

and sign their own individual applications and may re-submit to the court, at which time the court will

6

then screen the complaint pursuant to § 1915(e).1

7

Accordingly, and for good cause shown,

8

IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs Nora Hernandez and Robin M. Lee’s Application to Proceed

9
10

In Forma Pauperis (#1) is DENIED without prejudice.
DATED this 21st day of November, 2012.

11
12

CAM FERENBACH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1

25

Dismissal of a pro se complaint is appropriate if it is “so confused, ambiguous, vague or otherwise
unintelligible that its true substance, if any, is disguised.” Gillibeau v. City of Richmond, 417 F.2d 426, 431 (9th
Cir.1969). Plaintiffs may wish to redraft the complaint so it is in a comprehensible, legible form.

26
2