Calove v. State of Nevada et al

Filing 6

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 1 Calove's application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before 1/27/17, Calove must file an affidavit containing financial information sufficient for this court to determi ne whether she may proceed without paying the filing fee or pay the $400 filing fee. Failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of Calove's complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 1/12/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1

DISTRICT OF NEVADA
2

***

3

MARINA CALOVE,
4

Case No. 2:16–cv–2953–RFB–VCF

Plaintiff,
5

vs.

ORDER

6

STATE OF NEVADA; et.al.,

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
(ECF NO. 1)

7

Defendants.

8
9
10
11

Before the court are Calove’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) and
complaint (ECF No. 1-1). For the reasons stated below, Calove’s in forma pauperis application is
denied.

12

1. Calove Has Not Submitted a Proper In Forma Pauperis Petition
13

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) permits a plaintiff to bring a civil action “without prepayment of fees or
14

security thereof” if the plaintiff submits a financial affidavit that demonstrates the plaintiff’s “is unable
15
16
17

to pay such fees or give security therefor.”
Instead of completing a financial affidavit, Calove wrote “N/A” in each section and submitted

18

six pages of argument and citations to irrelevant authorities. (ECF No. 1) In essence, Calove argues she

19

is exempt from paying filing fees because she is a “sovereign person.” (Id.) A court in the Ninth Circuit

20

have rejected an identical argument. Rice v. City of Boise City, No. 1:13-cv-441-CWD, 2013 WL

21

6385657 at *2 (D. Id. Dec. 6, 2013)(“Plaintiff appears to be relying on a “sovereign citizen” theory to

22

challenge the Court’s filing fee, which has been unsuccessfully propounded by others.”) Echoing this

23

sentiment, the Ninth Circuit has long held that “sovereign citizen” arguments are without merit. United

24

States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 937 n. 3 (9th Cir. 1986)(“We note that this [sovereign citizen] argument

25

1

has been consistently and thoroughly rejected by every branch of the government for decades. Indeed,
1
2

advancement of such utterly meritless arguments is now the basis for serious sanctions imposed on civil

3

litigants who raise them.”) Calove has not provided this court with sufficient financial information for it

4

to determine whether she qualifies to proceed in forma pauperis. Because of this lack of information,

5

this court will afford Calove an opportunity to submit an affidavit with the appropriate financial

6

information.

7

ACCORDINGLY, and for good cause shown,

8

IT IS ORDERED that Calove’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) is DENIED.

9
10

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before January 27, 2017, Calove must file an affidavit
containing financial information sufficient for this court to determine whether she may proceed without

11

paying the filing fee or pay the $400 filing fee. Failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal
12

of Calove’s complaint.
13

NOTICE

14
15

Pursuant to Local Special Rule 2-2, the Plaintiff must immediately file written notification with

16

the court of any change of address. The notification must include proof of service upon each opposing

17

party or the party’s attorney. Failure to comply with this Rule may result in dismissal of the action.

18

See LSR 2-2.F

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

DATED this 12th day of January, 2017.

21
22

_________________________
CAM FERENBACH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25

2