Quick et al v. Puhan et al

Filing 4

ORDER. Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause by 5/24/2024 why the Court should not recommend his IFP application be denied. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Plaintiff and to the Honorable Robert S. Lasnik. Signed by Hon. Michelle L. Peterson. (MJV) (cc: Plaintiff via USPS)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8

DANIEL F. QUICK,
Plaintiff,

9
10
11

Case No. C24-629 RSL
ORDER

v.
CORBIN PUHAN, et al.,
Defendants.

12
13
14

Plaintiff has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in the above-

15

entitled action. (Dkt. # 1.) In the IFP application, Plaintiff states that he received $36,000 in

16

pensions, annuities, or life insurance payments in the past twelve months, that he has no cash on

17

hand, and that his monthly expenses are $3,000 for rent, food, car, and other payments. (Id.)

18

However, Plaintiff did not complete the IFP application’s attestation declaring that he is the

19

plaintiff in this case, that he believes he is entitled to relief, and that he is unable to pay the costs

20

of the proceeding or give security therefor. (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff also did not fill out sections

21

regarding how much money he has in checking and savings accounts. (Id. at 2.)

22
23

The district court may permit indigent litigants to proceed IFP upon completion of a
proper affidavit of indigence. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). “To qualify for in forma pauperis status,

ORDER - 1

1

a civil litigant must demonstrate both that the litigant is unable to pay court fees and that the

2

claims he or she seeks to pursue are not frivolous.” Ogunsalu v. Nair, 117 F. App’x 522, 523

3

(9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 1051 (2005). To meet the first prong of this test, a litigant

4

must show that he or she “cannot because of his [or her] poverty pay or give security for the

5

costs and still be able to provide him[ or her]self and dependents with the necessities of life.”

6

Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948) (internal alterations

7

omitted).

8

Plaintiff did not complete the attestation of the IFP application declaring that he is unable

9

to pay the costs of proceedings, or state how much money he has in checking and savings. Under

10

these circumstances, Plaintiff should not be authorized to proceed IFP unless he corrects these

11

deficiencies.

12

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause by May 24, 2024, why the Court

13

should not recommend his IFP application be denied. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this

14

Order to Plaintiff and to the Honorable Robert S. Lasnik.

15

Dated this 9th day of May, 2024.

16

A

17

MICHELLE L. PETERSON
United States Magistrate Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23

ORDER - 2