Smith-Lovejoy v. Sanders

Filing 12

ORDER DENYING without prejudice Plaintiff's 1 Motion/Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff has 30 days to submit the filing fee or renew his application to proceed in forma pauperis, correcting any deficiencies noted. (Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 08/05/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7 8 ANDRE SMITH-LOVEJOY, 9 Plaintiff, 10 11 vs. LEVY SANDERS, 12 Defendant. 13 3:13-cv-0265-RCJ-WGC ORDER Before the court is Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. # 1)1 and 14 15 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) _) pro se complaint (Doc. # 10).2 16 A person may be granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis if the person 17 “submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such [person] possesses [and] that 18 the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor. Such affidavit shall state the 19 nature of the action, defense or appeal and affiant’s belief that the person is entitled to 20 redress.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) 21 (stating that this provision applies to all actions filed in forma pauperis, not just prisoner 22 actions); see also LSR 1-1 (“[a]ny person, who is unable to prepay the fees in a civil case, may 23 apply to the Court for authority to proceed in forma pauperis. The application shall be made 24 on the form provided by the Court and shall include a financial affidavit disclosing the 25 applicant’s income, assets, expenses, and liabilities”). “‘[T]he supporting affidavits [must] state 26 1 27 2 28 Refers to court’s docket number. Plaintiff filed a complaint with his application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. # 1-1) and subsequently filed another complaint (Doc. # 10). The newly filed complaint names a different defendant and contains substantially different allegations than the original complaint. The court will address the discrepancies between the two documents once Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application is either granted or he pays the full filing fee. 1 the facts as to affiant’s poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.’” United 2 States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) (per curiam) (quoting Jefferson v. 3 United States, 277 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir. 1960)). The litigant need not “be absolutely 4 destitute to enjoy the benefits of the statute.” Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 335 5 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). 6 Plaintiff’s application indicates that he receives $745 per month in social security 7 benefits, and appears to receive other additional monthly income which he claims varies. (Doc. 8 # 1 at 1.) When he is asked to list out his regular monthly expenses, he states: “pending 9 $95,000.” (Id. at 2.) He lists two persons for whom he contributes money to support but does 10 not identify any amount paid to these individuals. (Id.) He further states that he pays $1,200 11 per year to Physicians Mutual Insurance Corporation, and that he has a “pending” water utility 12 obligation to the State of California, but again he does not provide the amount. (Id.) 13 Plaintiff does not sufficiently describe his monthly expenses so that the court can 14 determine whether he should be granted in forma pauperis status. As a result, the application 15 to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff has THIRTY 16 DAYS to submit the filing fee or renew his application to proceed in forma pauperis, 17 correcting any deficiencies noted above. Plaintiff is advised that failure to comply with this 18 order will result in a recommendation that the district judge dismiss the action. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 DATED: August 5, 2013. 22 23 24 ___________________________________ WILLIAM G. COBB UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28 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?