Sykes v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department of Clark County Nevada et al
ORDER Denying 1 Motion/Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice. Payment of filing fees in full or a complete Application to Proceed IFP is due on or before 10/7/2021. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Albregts on 9/7/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF, IFP forms enclosed. - DRS)
Case 2:21-cv-01479-RFB-DJA Document 3 Filed 09/07/21 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Mark Clifford Sykes,
Case No. 2:21-cv-01479-RFB-DJA
Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, et
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. The Court finds these matters
properly resolved without a hearing. LR 78-1.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), the Court may only authorize a party to proceed with an
action without paying the fees or costs or providing security for them if that person submits an
affidavit including a statement showing the person is unable to pay the costs. The Court’s Local
Rules provide that a person who is unable to prepay fees in a civil case may apply for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. See LSR 1-1. The application must be on the form provided by the
court and include a financial affidavit disclosing the applicant’s income, assets, expenses, and
liabilities. See LSR 1-1. Finally, under Local Rule IC 5-1, an electronic signature may either be
in the form of “/s/ [name]” or a facsimile of a handwritten signature. LR IC 5-1.
Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s application is incomplete because: (1) it does not
state the amount of money received from Social Security Benefits under question three; (2) does
not explain whether the Plaintiff owns any automobile, real estate, stock, bond, security, jewelry,
art work, or other financial instrument or thing of value under question five; (3) crosses out
“declare under penalty of perjury” in the declaration section and replaces it with “certify”; and
(4) uses an electronic signature without the “/s/ [name]” convention required by Local Rule IC 5-
Case 2:21-cv-01479-RFB-DJA Document 3 Filed 09/07/21 Page 2 of 2
1. Crucially, without complete answers to questions three and five, the Court is unable to
determine Plaintiff’s income or find that Plaintiff is unable to pay the costs of commencing this
Having concluded that Plaintiff is not entitled at this time to proceed in forma pauperis,
the Court need not screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires the
dismissal of the case at any time if the Court determines that it is frivolous or malicious or fails to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted or seeks monetary relief against a defendant is
immune from such relief. Plaintiff is instructed to state the amount of money received from
Social Security Benefits under question three and respond to question five. Plaintiff is also
instructed not to cross language out of the declaration section and, if he uses an electronic
signature, to sign using the “/s/ [name]” convention.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis (ECF No. 1) is denied without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file a complete application with a more
detailed answer to questions three and five. In the alternative, Plaintiff may make the necessary
arrangements to pay the filing fee of $402, accompanied by a copy of this Order. Plaintiff shall
have thirty days from the date of this order—until Thursday, October 7, 2021—to comply by
filing a new application to proceed in forma pauperis or to pay the filing fee. Failure to comply
will result in a recommendation to the District Judge for dismissal of this action.
DATED: September 7, 2021
DANIEL J. ALBREGTS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Page 2 of 2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?