Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01230/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01230-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEROME IRELAND, JR.,

 Plaintiff,

v.

ANDRE SMITH, et al., 

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01230 MJS

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

(Doc. 3)

AMENDED APPLICATION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS DUE 

WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS

I. INTRODUCTION

On August 10, 2015, Plaintiff Jerome Ireland, Jr. filed a complaint and an 

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ("IFP") with this court. (See ECF No. 1, 3.)

Review of Plaintiff's Application leaves the Court unable to determine whether or not he 

may proceed in forma pauperis.

II. BACKGROUND

A. The Complaint

Plaintiff's Complaint, while typewritten, is largely unintelligible. Plaintiff’s essential 

allegations, against two employees of Wells Fargo Bank and an employee of Bank of 

America, appear subject to summarization as follows (Compl. at 1):

Fraudulent activity is occurring on Plainitff’s accounts. (Id.) He has 

Case 1:15-cv-01230-LJO-MJS Document 4 Filed 08/14/15 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

communicated with bank representatives in on-line chatrooms, and he is now in receipt 

of his business credit card. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff requests, in exchange for filing suit, that 

the parties appear in Court and provide him keys to his home in Los Altos Hills, 

California, his "surprise car" keys, and keys to Levis Stadium. (Id.) He further alleges 

that banks have engaged in fraud and that the instigators of the fraud need be 

prosecuted. (Id. at 6-7.) Plaintiff wants defendants committed to state custody, and he 

wants release of bank holds on trillions of dollars is his accounts.1(Id. at. 9.)

B. In Forma Pauperis Application

Like his complaint, Plaintiff's IFP application is difficult to comprehend. Of greater 

concern, Plaintiff does not therein allege that he is indigent and unable to pay the fees 

associated with litigation. 

Plaintiff indicates that he is employed by his computer related service "open 

forum.com" and that he has received money from his employment and many other 

sources within the last twelve months. (IFP App., ECF No. 3.) He further indicates that 

his take home salary is $250 billion dollars. (Id.) In general, the application is improperly 

filled out, and the statements are nonsensical or delusional with few even relating to the 

question posed.

2

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a district court may authorize the commencement of a 

civil action IFP if it is satisfied that the plaintiff cannot pay the filing fees necessary to 

pursue the action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The policy for allowing a plaintiff to 

proceed IFP is to protect litigants from abandoning "what may be a meritorious claim in 

order to spare himself complete destitution." Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 

335 U.S. 331, 340, 69 S. Ct. 85, 93 L. Ed. 43 (1948). However, "[c]ourt permission to 

proceed in forma pauperis is itself a matter of privilege and not right; denial of in forma 

 

1

If Plaintiff is entitled to IFP status, his complaint appears a likely candidate for dismissal, upon 

mandatory screening, as frivolous or malicious under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

2 For example, Plaintiff checks the box stating that he is not currently incarcerated, but then responds to 

the question as to his place of incarceration, but responds to it by sating "I have a FBI nuclear reactor 

weapons from SWAT sheriff dept." (Id. at 1.)

Case 1:15-cv-01230-LJO-MJS Document 4 Filed 08/14/15 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

pauperis status does not violate the applicant's right to due process." Franklin v. 

Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1231 (9th Cir. 1984).

To determine IFP eligibility, an applicant must "submit[] an affidavit that includes 

a statement of all assets" showing that the applicant "is unable to pay such fees or give 

security therefor." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). To satisfy this requirement, "an affidavit [of 

poverty] is sufficient which states that one cannot because of his [or her] poverty pay or 

give security for costs . . . and still be able to provide himself and dependents with the 

necessities of life." Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339. The Ninth Circuit has held that "a plaintiff 

seeking IFP status must allege poverty 'with some particularity, definiteness and 

certainty.'" Escobedo v. Applebees, F.3d , 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9313, 2015 WL 

3499902, at *7 (9th Cir. June 4, 2015) (quoting United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 

938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981)). The Court has discretion to make a factual inquiry into an IFP 

applicant's financial status and to deny the application where the applicant is unable or 

unwilling to verify his or her poverty. McQuade, 647 F.2d at 940.

III. DISCUSSSION

Although Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, he has not 

established that he is impoverished and unable to pay of the requisite filing fees to 

commence his lawsuit. Plaintiff's application is incomplete, and mostly 

incomprehensible. Courts require more "particularity, definiteness and certainty" in 

analyzing such applications. McQuade, 647 F.2d at 940.

For example, in the case of Bridgewater v. Bankson, the plaintiff submitted 

multiple IFP applications which contained inconsistencies and provided incomplete 

information about her financial status. 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3717, 2010 WL 291786, at 

*9 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2010). The Bridgewater court initially denied the plaintiff's first IFP 

application, noting inconsistencies between her reported net income and expenses. 

2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3717, [WL] at *9. The court, however, allowed the plaintiff to 

amend and clarify her IFP application, and consequently, plaintiff filed two more 

amended IFP applications. Id. But again, the revised applications "fail[ed] to give a 

Case 1:15-cv-01230-LJO-MJS Document 4 Filed 08/14/15 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

consistent or adequate statement of her finances." Id. As the court was unable to 

assess the plaintiff's financial status based on her applications' incomplete and 

conflicting representations, the court denied her applications. Id.; see also Hopkins v. 

Tacoma Mun. Court, 393 F. App'x 476, 477 (9th Cir. 2010) (affirming denial of IFP 

application for not accounting for different statements regarding employment 

information); United States v. Sidman, 470 F.2d 1158, 1160 (9th Cir. 1972) (an IFP 

application "must include, at a minimum: Plaintiff's income in such a manner that the 

Court can accurately calculate annual income . . . and any debts or expenses that 

reduce monthly and yearly income.").

As opposed to the above-referenced cases, Plaintiff's application fails on more 

significant grounds than providing incomplete information. Rather than claim indigence, 

Plaintiff appears to claim that he is extremely wealthy, an indication that he is not

eligible for IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).

Petitioner has not made the requisite showing of need to be granted IFP status. 

However, the Court will provide Plaintiff with an opportunity to file an amended IFP

application to address the concerns raised above. 

IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, if Plaintiff wishes to proceed IFP, the Court ORDERS 

him to file an amended IFP Application providing clear, legible, and complete answers 

to all the questions in the Application. Plaintiff must file his amended application by 

September 14, 2015. Plaintiff is instructed that a failure to comply with this order may 

itself be considered a basis for imposing sanctions against him pursuant to Local Rule 

110, and will result in dismissal of the complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 13, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01230-LJO-MJS Document 4 Filed 08/14/15 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

Case 1:15-cv-01230-LJO-MJS Document 4 Filed 08/14/15 Page 5 of 5