Shinabargar v. Board of Trustees of the University of the District of Columbia et al

Filing 7

ORDER denying 1 Motion/Application for Leave to Proceed IFP; denying 6 Motion for USM to Serve Defendants. Plaintiff has 30 days to pay the filing fee (due 3/20/2014). Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 02/18/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7
8
NANCY SHINABARGAR,
9
Plaintiff,
10
vs.
11
12

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA, et. al.

13
Defendants.
14

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

3:14-cv-00072-MMD-WGC
ORDER

15

Before the court is Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. # 1)1 and pro se

16

complaint (Doc. # 1-1). Also before the court is Plaintiff’s request that the U.S. Marshal serve the

17

defendants. (Doc. # 6.)

18

A person may be granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis if the person “submits an

19

affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such [person] possesses [and] that the person is unable

20

to pay such fees or give security therefor. Such affidavit shall state the nature of the action, defense or

21

appeal and affiant’s belief that the person is entitled to redress.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); Lopez v. Smith,

22

203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (stating that this provision applies to all actions filed

23

in forma pauperis, not just prisoner actions); see also LSR 1-1 (“[a]ny person, who is unable to prepay

24

the fees in a civil case, may apply to the Court for authority to proceed in forma pauperis. The

25

application shall be made on the form provided by the Court and shall include a financial affidavit

26

disclosing the applicant’s income, assets, expenses, and liabilities”). “‘[T]he supporting affidavits

27

[must] state the facts as to affiant’s poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.’” United

28

States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) (per curiam) (quoting Jefferson v. United States,
1

Refers to court’s docket number.

1

277 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir. 1960)). The litigant need not “be absolutely destitute to enjoy the benefits

2

of the statute.” Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948).

3

While Plaintiff’s application states that she is unemployed, she indicates that she has $10,628.33

4

in cash or in a checking or savings account. (Doc. # 1 at 2.) Accordingly, it appears Plaintiff does have

5

the means to pay the filing fee in this action. Therefore, Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma

6

pauperis (Doc. # 1) is DENIED. Plaintiff has THIRTY DAYS from the date of this order to pay the

7

filing fee. If Plaintiff fails to pay the filing fee, the district court may issue an order for dismissal of the

8

case. The court will address Plaintiff’s pending motion for leave to amend the names of three individual

9

defendants (Doc. # 5) once Plaintiff has paid the filing fee.

10

Plaintiff sets forth no authority supporting her request that the U.S. Marshal serve the defendants

11

in this action. The United States Code allows for service by the U.S. Marshal upon request by the

12

plaintiff when a party is proceeding in forma pauperis, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, or when the plaintiff is a

13

seaman proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 1916. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). Plaintiff’s application to

14

proceed in forma pauperis has been denied; therefore, Plaintiff’s request to have service effectuated by

15

the U.S. Marshal (Doc. # 6) is likewise DENIED.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

DATED: February 18, 2014.

18
19
___________________________________
WILLIAM G. COBB
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2