Summary
The United States District Court for the Southern District of California denied Matthew Robert Elmore’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis because he left substantial portions of the application blank and failed to verify his financial condition. The court also dismissed his largely blank complaint against the Internal Revenue Service for failure to state a claim, but granted leave to amend and ordered him to pay the filing fee or submit an updated IFP petition and amended complaint by January 16, 2026.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Elmore adequately demonstrated that he was entitled to proceed in forma pauperis.
- Whether the complaint stated a plausible claim for relief sufficient to survive screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
- Whether Elmore should receive leave to amend the deficient pro se complaint.
Holdings
- A court may deny an application to proceed in forma pauperis when the applicant leaves material financial information blank and is therefore unable or unwilling to verify poverty. Elmore failed to provide sufficient financial information, so the motion was denied.
- A complaint that supplies no legal basis, supporting facts, or plausible entitlement to relief fails to state a claim and must be dismissed during screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Elmore's largely blank complaint failed this standard.
- A pro se plaintiff must be given leave to amend unless it is absolutely clear that the complaint's deficiencies cannot be cured by amendment. Because Elmore might be able to cure the deficiencies, the complaint was dismissed with leave to amend.
Key quotations
“Even though plaintiff “need not be completely destitute to proceed IFP,”” (at 1)
“a “district court should not dismiss a pro se complaint without leave to amend unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.”” (at 2)
“The amended complaint must be complete by itself without reference to any previous version of his pleading” (at 3)
Factual background
Elmore sought to waive the filing fee by claiming average monthly income of zero from public-benefit programs. He left blank the remaining portions of the IFP form, including information concerning assets, cash on hand, and monthly liabilities. His seven-page complaint was almost entirely blank and identified only his name, contact information, the IRS as defendant, an address listed as Russia, and a checked federal-question box, without stating a legal basis or facts supporting a claim.
Procedural history
Matthew Elmore filed a complaint against the IRS and sought permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. The court found that he had left most of the in forma pauperis application blank and had not verified his financial circumstances. On mandatory screening, the court found that the largely blank complaint alleged no legal basis, supporting facts, or plausible claim for relief. The court denied the IFP motion and dismissed the complaint with leave to amend by January 16, 2026.