Green v. Southern Nevada Regional Housing Authority et al

Filing 10

ORDER that Plaintiff is to file, under seal, proof of all of her monthly expenses. Plaintiff must file this proof no later than December 29, 2014 re 8 Fourth APPLICATION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 12/17/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9
AMBER GREEN,

15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

16

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Amber Green’s Fourth Applications to Proceed

17

In Forma Pauperis filed on December 11, 2014. Docket No. 8. Plaintiff has requested authority,

18

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, to proceed in forma pauperis. This proceeding was referred to this

19

court by Local Rule IB 1-9.

20

I.

10
Plaintiff(s),
11
12

vs.

13

SOUTHERN NEVADA REGIONAL
HOUSING AUTHORITY, et al.,

14
Defendant(s).

Case No. 2:14-cv-01945-APG-NJK

ORDER
(Docket No. 8)

Background

21

On November 24, 2014, the Court denied Plaintiff’s first Application to Proceed In Forma

22

Pauperis because it was incomplete. Docket No. 2. The following day, Plaintiff filed two additional

23

Applications to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Docket Nos. 3, 4. The Court again denied Plaintiff’s

24

Applications as incomplete. Docket No. 5. Specifically, the Court noted that, within four days,

25

Plaintiff’s regularly monthly expenses had increased and that Plaintiff listed $114/month for car

26

insurance, but stated she did not own a car. Id., at 1-2. The Court also noted that Plaintiff’s total

27

listed monthly expenses exceed $2,000, which is more than her stated take-home pay of

28

$1,500/month, and that Plaintiff listed no debts or financial obligations. Id., at 2.

1

Plaintiff submitted a Third Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, and the Court

2 conducted a hearing regarding the Third Application on December 11, 2014. Docket Nos. 6, 9. The
3 order setting the hearing stated that Plaintiff needed to be prepared to discuss the inconsistencies in
4 her Applications. Docket No. 7. At the hearing, the Court inquired why, after specifically stating the
5 problems with her previous Applications, inconsistencies continue to exist. See Hearing Recording
6 (12/11/14) at 3:06 p.m.
7

Plaintiff’s counsel represented to the Court that Plaintiff failed to include her car in the

8 Applications because she is paying off the car loan, and “in her mind she did not believe she owned
9 it.” Id., at 3:07 p.m. Plaintiff’s counsel further represented that Plaintiff does have the title to the car.
10 Id. Plaintiff told the Court that she is responsible, and not her landlord, for the upkeep of the front
11 and back yards of her home. Id., at 3:08 p.m. Thus, Plaintiff said she pays $75/month for yard work.
12 Id.
13

The Court denied the Third Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and gave Plaintiff a

14 final chance to complete the application appropriately. Docket No. 9. The Court warned Plaintiff that
15 the application needed to be filled out accurately. See Hearing Recording (12/11/14) at 3:08 p.m.
16 That application has now been filed. Docket No. 8.
17 II.

Analysis

18

Plaintiff does not have a right to proceed in forma pauperis. Cooke v. Harpum, 2008 WL

19 1859051, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2008) (citing Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1231 (9th
20 Cir.1984)). Proceeding in forma pauperis is a privilege “which will be granted only upon full and
21 complete truthful statements made to [the] Court.” Poslof v. Walton, 2012 WL 691767, at *3 (E.D.
22 Cal. Mar. 2, 2012) report and recommendation adopted, 2012 WL 968028 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2012).
23 Furthermore, each time Plaintiff submitted her Application, she signed the affidavit, indicating that
24 she understood that “a false statement may result in a dismissal of [her] claims.” Docket No. 8, at 1;
25 Docket No. 6, at 1; Docket No. 4, at 2; Docket No. 3, at 2; Docket No. 1, at 2.
26

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, “any court of the United States may authorize the

27 commencement . . . of any suit, action or proceeding, . . . without prepayment of fees or security
28 therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). To qualify for in forma pauperis status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915,
-2-

1 Plaintiff must submit a sworn affidavit that she is unable to pay the costs of the Court proceedings.
2 An affidavit is sufficient if it states that the Plaintiff cannot pay the costs of the proceedings and still
3 provide for herself and any dependents “with the necessities of life.” Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony,
4 506 U.S. 194, 203 (1993) (quoting Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339
5 (1948)). Additionally, the affidavit must state the facts regarding the individual’s poverty “with some
6 particularity, definiteness and certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir.
7 1981) (quoting Jefferson v. United States, 277 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir. 1960)). If an individual is
8 unable or unwilling to verify his or her poverty, “the Court has the discretion to make a factual inquiry
9 into a plaintiff’s financial status and to deny their request to proceed in forma pauperis.” Cooke,
10 2008 WL 1859051, at *2. See Marin v. Hahn, 271 F. App’x 578 (9th Cir. 2008) (“The district court
11 did not abuse its discretion by denying Marin’s request to proceed in forma pauperis because Marin
12 failed to verify his poverty adequately”). To that end, if the Court determines that an individual’s
13 allegation of poverty is untrue, “it shall dismiss the case.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
14

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Fourth Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Docket

15 No. 8. Even after the Court warned Plaintiff to fill out the application completely and accurately, it
16 continues to contain inconsistencies. Plaintiff has sworn, under penalty of perjury, that she vacated
17 her previous home at the end of November, and paid her mother $400 to rent a room from her.1 Id.,
18 at 6-7. Plaintiff also states that still paying $400/month for utilities. Docket No. 8, at 4. For the first
19 time, Plaintiff states that she has “to pay back-owed utilities,” but previously stated she had no debts
20 or financial obligations. Docket No. 8, at 7; Docket No. 1, at 2; Docket No. 3, at 2. Plaintiff’s total
21 monthly expenses also exceed her total monthly income by over $600.2 See Docket No. 8.
22

Plaintiff’s current Application states that she owns a car. Docket No. 8, at 3. However, the

23 price of her car insurance has changed. Id., at 4. In Second Application, Plaintiff stated she spends
24 $114/month for car insurance. Docket No. 3, at 2. Plaintiff’s Third Application states she spends
25
26
27

1

Plaintiff’s Third Application, filed on December 1, 2014, stated that her rent was
$950/month. Docket No. 6, at 4.
2

28

Thus, Plaintiff claims she spends more than 145% of her monthly income. Plaintiff also
states she has no cash, no money in a bank account, and no debt.
-3-

1 $105/month. Docket No. 6, at 4. Now, Plaintiff states she spends $150/month for car insurance.
2 Docket No. 8, at 4.
3 III.

Conclusion

4

Plaintiff has not demonstrated her poverty with any particularity, definiteness or certainty.

5 Further, Plaintiff appears to have made numerous misrepresentations to the Court, both in writing and
6 in person. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS Plaintiff to file, under seal, proof of all of her
7 monthly expenses. Plaintiff must file this proof no later than December 29, 2014. Failure to do so
8 will result in a denial of her current Application to proceed in forma pauperis.
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 17, 2014

11
12
13

NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-