Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada denied Julian J. Alexander’s application to proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice because the application omitted or inadequately answered several financial questions. The court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file an updated application or pay the filing fee and did not screen the complaint at that time.
Holdings
- An in forma pauperis application that omits required information about the applicant's income, assets, expenses, dependents, or financial obligations does not permit the court to determine eligibility under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).
- The court may deny an incomplete in forma pauperis application without prejudice and allow the applicant an opportunity to file a complete application or pay the filing fee.
Questions Presented
- Whether the plaintiff's incomplete financial affidavit established eligibility to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).
- Whether the court should allow the plaintiff an opportunity to submit a corrected application or pay the filing fee.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (5)
- Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1235 (9th Cir. 2015)(followed)
- Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948)(followed)
- United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981)(followed)
- Harper v. San Diego City Admin. Bldg., No. 16-cv-00768 AJB (BLM), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192145, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 9, 2016)(followed)
- Kennedy v. Huibregtse, 831 F.3d 441, 443-44 (7th Cir. 2016)(analogized)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…