Webb v. Federal Court Staff et al

Filing 3

ORDER - Plaintiff's application to proceed IFP (ECF No. 1 ) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff shall submit a new, complete IFP application within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this Order. The application shall clearly identify her i ncome, assets, expenses and liabilities. A failure to do so, or to pay the full filing fee, will result in a report and recommendation that this action be dismissed. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 6/29/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7

TRACY WEBB,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

Case No. 3:17-cv-00350-MMD-WGC
ORDER

v.
FEDERAL COURT STAFF, et al.,
Defendants.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and pro se complaint.
(ECF Nos. 1, 1-1.)
A person may be granted permission to proceed IFP if the person “submits an affidavit
that includes a statement of all assets such [person] possesses [and] that the person is unable to
pay such fees or give security therefor. Such affidavit shall state the nature of the action, defense
or appeal and affiant’s belief that the person is entitled to redress.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1);
Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (stating that 28 U.S.C. § 1915
applies to all actions filed IFP, not just prisoner actions).
In addition, the Local Rules of Practice for the District of Nevada provide: “Any person
who is unable to prepay the fees in a civil case may apply to the court for authority to proceed
[IFP]. The application must be made on the form provided by the court and must include a
financial affidavit disclosing the applicant’s income, assets, expenses, and liabilities.” LSR 1-1.
“‘[T]he supporting affidavits [must] state the facts as to [the] affiant’s poverty with some
particularity, definiteness and certainty.’” U.S. v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981)
(quoting Jefferson v. United States, 277 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir. 1960)). A litigant need not “be
absolutely destitute to enjoy the benefits of the statute.” Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours &
Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiff’s application states that her gross pay or wages are $895 plus $300 to $500
“dependable.” (ECF No. 1 at 1.) She also lists her take home-pay wages as $1295, $1195 and
$1395 “if I have clients.” (Id.) The court cannot discern from this statement the amount of
Plaintiff’s monthly income. Where the form asks about Plaintiff’s monthly expenses, she states:
“You guys know I’m not in a home yet and you know exactly what’s go on.” (Id. at 2.) In the
space that asks about debts or financial obligations, she writes: “I’m paying off bills,” but does
not indicate what bills or the amounts.
Plaintiff must provide clearer information about her monthly income, expenses and
liabilities in order for the court to assess whether she can pay the filing fee or not. The court
cannot ascertain Plaintiff’s poverty from the application as written.
As such, Plaintiff’s application to proceed IFP is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Plaintiff shall submit a new, complete IFP application within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this
Order. The application shall clearly identify her income, assets, expenses and liabilities. A
failure to do so, or to pay the full filing fee, will result in a report and recommendation that this
action be dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 29, 2017.

18
19
20

__________________________________________
WILLIAM G. COBB
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26

-2-