Li v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Yi Li, Case No.: 2:25-cv-01349-MDC 4 Plaintiff, 5 vs. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 6 PAUPERIS (ECF NO. 1) 7 Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, et al., 8 Defendants. 9 Pending before the Court is pro se plaintiff Yi Li’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 10 (“IFP”) (ECF No. 1). The Court DENIES the IFP application without prejudice. Plaintiff must either file 11 a new Long Form IFP application OR pay the full filing $405 fee by October 24, 2025. 12 DISCUSSION 13 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(1), a plaintiff may bring a civil action “without prepayment of fees or 14 security thereof” if the plaintiff submits a financial affidavit that demonstrates the plaintiff “is unable to 15 pay such fees or give security therefor.” The Ninth Circuit has recognized that “there is no formula set 16 forth by statute, regulation, or case law to determine when someone is poor enough to earn IFP status.” 17 Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1235 (9th Cir. 2015). An applicant need not be destitute to 18 qualify for a waiver of costs and fees, but he must demonstrate that because of his poverty he cannot pay 19 those costs and still provide himself with the necessities of life. Adkins v. E.I DuPont de Nemours & 20 Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). 21 The applicant's affidavit must state the facts regarding the individual's poverty “with some 22 particularity, definiteness and certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) 23 (citation omitted). If an individual is unable or unwilling to verify his or her poverty, district courts have 24 the discretion to make a factual inquiry into a plaintiff's financial status and to deny a request to proceed — 25 — 1 in forma pauperis. See, e.g., Marin v. Hahn, 271 Fed.Appx. 578 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding that the district 2 court did not abuse its discretion by denying the plaintiff's request to proceed IFP because he “failed to 3 verify his poverty adequately”). “Such affidavit must include a complete statement of the plaintiff's 4 personal assets.” Harper v. San Diego City Admin. Bldg., No. 16cv00768 AJB (BLM), 2016 U.S. Dist. 5 LEXIS 192145 , at 1 (S.D. Cal. June 9, 2016). Misrepresentation of assets is sufficient grounds in 6 themselves for denying an in forma pauperis application. Cf. Kennedy v. Huibregtse, 831 F.3d 441 , 4437 44 (7th Cir. 2016) (affirming dismissal with prejudice after litigant misrepresented assets on in forma 8 pauperis application). 9 The District of Nevada has adopted three types of IFP applications: a “Prisoner Form” for 10 incarcerated persons and a “Short Form” (AO 240) and “Long Form” (AO 239) for non-incarcerated 11 persons. The Long Form requires more detailed information than the Short Form. The court typically 12 does not order an applicant to submit the Long Form unless the Short Form is inadequate, more 13 information is needed, or it appears that the plaintiff is concealing information about his income for 14 determining whether the applicant qualifies for IFP status. When an applicant is specifically ordered to 15 submit the Long Form, the correct form must be submitted, and the applicant must provide all the 16 information requested in the Long Form so that the court is able to make a fact finding regarding the 17 applicant's financial status. See e.g. Greco v. NYE Cty. Dist. Jude Robert Lane, No. 18 215CV01370MMDPAL, 2016 WL 7493981 , at 3 (D. Nev. Nov. 9, 2016), report and recommendation 19 adopted sub nom. Greco v. Lake, No. 215CV001370MMDPAL, 2016 WL 7493963 (D. Nev. Dec. 30, 20 2016). 21 The Court finds that it cannot determine plaintiff’s IFP status at this time. Plaintiff filed a Long 22 Form IFP application (ECF No. 1); however, the Court notes that it contains inconsistencies and 23 deficiencies. Plaintiff states this his average gross income during past 12 months is $2,677.14. ECF No. 24 1 at 1-2. However, when listing his employment history, plaintiff states that he received a gross monthly — 25 — 1 || income of $3,656.00 over the past 26 months, between February 2022 and April 2025. /d. at 2. Plaintiff 2 || needs to submit a revised Long Form IFP application addressing this inconsistency. Plaintiff's July 2025 3 || IFP attachment states he anticipated unemployment benefits or new employment. See ECF No. 1-1 at 1. 4 || In his revised Long Form IFP application, plaintiff must state whether he has since secured 5 ||unemployment benefits or new employment, and any income derived from either. Therefore, the Court 6 || finds it cannot make a determination of plaintiff's IFP status at this time. However, the Court will give 7 || plaintiff another opportunity to file his IFP application. If plaintiff wishes to proceed in forma pauperis, 8 || plaintiff must complete a revised Long Form IFP application responding to the Court’s request for 9 || clarification and additional information made by this order. Plaintiff also cannot leave questions blank or 10 || merely answer $0. Plaintiff must provide explanations for his answers. 11 ACCORDINGLY, 12 IT IS ORDERED that: 13 1. The IFP application (ECF No. 1) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 14 2. Plaintiff must either: (1) file a revised Long Form IFP application, curing the deficiencies 15 noted in this Order, or (2) pay the full $405 filing fee by October 24, 2025. 16 3. Failure to timely comply with this Order may result in a recommendation that this case be 17 dismissed. 18 DATED: September 19, 2025 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Hon/Maximiljano|D. ouvillier III 3 Udited ees Judge — 23 — — 24 — — 25 — 1 NOTICE 2 Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and 3 recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk 4 of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal 5 may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified 6 time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). 7 This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) 8 failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District 9 Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 10 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452 , 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 11 Pursuant to LR IA 3-1, the plaintiff must immediately file written notification with the court of any 12 change of address. The notification must include proof of service upon each opposing party’s attorney, 13 or upon the opposing party if the party is unrepresented by counsel. Failure to comply with this rule may 14 result in dismissal of the action. — 15 — — 16 — — 17 — — 18 — — 19 — — 20 — — 21 — — 22 — — 23 — — 24 — — 25 —