Bracho v. Las Vegas Justice Court Marshal

Filing 7

ORDER denying 4 Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff must either pay the $350.00 filing fee, plus the $50.00 administrative fee, within 30 days from the date of this order or file a new, completed application to proceed IFP. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's failure to timely comply with this order will result in a recommendation to the district judge that this case be dismissed.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to send plaintiff a new copy of an IFP application (form AO 240). Signed by Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler on 9/25/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - cc: AO 240 and instructions to P - HAM)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7
8

Ariel Morales Bracho,
Plaintiff,

9
10
11
12
13
14

Case No. 2:20-cv-01338-JAD-BNW
ORDER

v.
Las Vegas Justice Court Marshal,
Defendant.

Before the court is plaintiff Ariel Morales Bracho’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis (“IFP”) (ECF No. 4), filed on July 30, 2020.

15
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a $350 filing fee and a $50 administrative fee (i.e., $400 total) is
16
required to commence a civil action in district court. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), the court
17
18

may authorize the commencement of a civil case “without prepayment of fees and costs or
security therefor” if a person submits an affidavit including a statement of all assets that

19
demonstrates the person is unable to pay the fees or give security for them. A party need not be
20
completely destitute to proceed IFP. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331,
21
339–40 (1948). But the determination of whether plaintiff has shown an inability to pay is a
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

matter left to the discretion of the Court. See Cal. Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858
(9th Cir. 1991) (noting “Section 1915 typically requires the reviewing court to exercise its sound
discretion in determining whether the affiant has satisfied the statute’s requirement of
indigency”), rev’d on other grounds, 506 U.S. 194 (1993).

1

Here, plaintiff applied to proceed IFP and subsequently submitted two supplements. ECF

2

Nos. 5 & 6. The Court will determine whether to allow plaintiff to proceed IFP using plaintiff’s

3

latest supplement.

4

The Court has two problems with plaintiff’s application.

5

First, according to plaintiff’s latest supplement, plaintiff takes home $820 each month as a

6

part-time employee. ECF No. 6 at 1. However, plaintiff also states that his last day of work was

7

March 11, 2020. Id. These two representations are inconsistent with one another, given that

8

plaintiff’s latest supplement was filed on August 14, 2020.

9

Second, under “other sources” of income, plaintiff lists $1,044 in unemployment and

10

$2,164 in “COVID-19 help.” Id. at 1. However, it is unclear to the Court whether this sum

11

represents how much money plaintiff has received in total or how much plaintiff is currently

12

receiving from these sources. The application requires plaintiff to “state the amount you received

13

[from other sources] and what you expect to receive in the future.” Id. at 1 (emphasis added).

14

The Court will require plaintiff to clearly articulate (1) how much money he or she received from

15

these “other sources” and (2) how much money he or she expects to continue to receive from

16

these other sources in the future on a weekly or monthly basis.

17

If plaintiff elects to file a new IFP application, the Court encourages plaintiff to be as clear

18

as possible because it cannot exercise its discretion to grant IFP status until it is fully apprised of

19

plaintiff’s financial circumstances. For now, plaintiff’s application to proceed IFP will be denied,

20

and the Court will not screen the complaint until this IFP matter is resolved.

21
22
23

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis
(ECF No. 4) is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff must either pay the $350.00 filing fee, plus the

24

$50.00 administrative fee, within 30 days from the date of this order or file a new, completed

25

application to proceed IFP.

26
27

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s failure to timely comply with this order will
result in a recommendation to the district judge that this case be dismissed.

28
Page 2 of 3

1
2
3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to send plaintiff a new
copy of an IFP application (form AO 240).
DATED: September 25, 2020.

4
5
6

BRENDA WEKSLER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 3 of 3