Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00476/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00476-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kathy Davis
Defendant
Candace Smith
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CANDACE SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

KATHY DAVIS,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00476-JLT-EPG

ORDER DENYING IN FORMA PAUPERIS

APPLICATION WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND 

DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT LONG 

FORM APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS OR PAY FILING FEE 

WITHIN FORTY-FIVE DAYS

(ECF No. 2).

Plaintiff Candace Smith filed this civil action on April 22, 2024. (See ECF No. 1). With 

the filing of his complaint, Plaintiff submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP)

(ECF No. 2). 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a pro se plaintiff may proceed without prepayment of fees 

by submitting “an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such [person] possesses that the 

person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” See Flores v. California Corr. 

Women’s Facility, No. 1:19-cv-1509-NONE-JLT, 2020 WL 8821643, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 24, 

2020) (noting that § 1915(a)(1) applies to non-prisoner plaintiffs). “[T]here is no formula set forth 

by statute, regulation, or case law to determine when someone is poor enough to earn IFP status.” 

Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1235 (9th Cir. 2015). Rather, “[a]n affidavit in support of 

an IFP application is sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still 

afford the necessities of life.” Id. at 1234. However, “it is proper and indeed essential for the 

Case 1:24-cv-00476-JLT-EPG Document 3 Filed 04/29/24 Page 1 of 3
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

supporting affidavits to state the facts as to affiant’s poverty with some particularity, definiteness 

and certainty.” United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) (quoting Jefferson v. 

United States, 277 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir. 1960)).

Under § 1915(e)(2)(A), a “court shall dismiss” a case if it determines that “the allegation 

of poverty is untrue.” But “[t]o dismiss [a] complaint pursuant to § 1915(e)(2), a showing of bad 

faith is required, not merely inaccuracy.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1235 n. 8 (9th 

Cir. 2015). “[C]ourts routinely dismiss with prejudice cases upon finding that the plaintiff has 

intentionally withheld information that may have disqualified plaintiff from obtaining IFP status 

or has otherwise manipulated his finances to make it appear that a plaintiff is poorer than he 

actually is; i.e., where the facts show that the inaccuracy on the IFP application resulted from the 

plaintiff's bad faith.” Witkin v. Lee, No. 2:17-CV-0232-JAM-EFB P, 2020 WL 2512383, at *3 

(E.D. Cal. May 15, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, No. 2020 WL 4350094 (E.D. 

Cal. July 29, 2020).

With these standards in mind, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s IFP application checks “No” 

on the standard from question that asks if Plaintiff is currently employed. (ECF No. 2, p. 1). 

However, Plaintiff does not fill out the portion of the form asking the date of Plaintiff’s last 

employment and Plaintiff’s employer and pay information. Lastly, Plaintiff indicates that Plaintiff

has not received any money from employment over the last twelve months.

Adding further uncertainty to Plaintiff’s financial circumstances are Plaintiff’s IFP 

applications filed in other recent cases, including before this Court. Plaintiff filed six cases in 

February 2024.1In three of those cases, including in a different case before this Court, Plaintiff

was required to file long-form applications based on confusion as to Plaintiff’s employment 

status. See 1:24-cv-00251-EPG, ECF No. 3 at 2-3 (E.D. Cal., Mar. 4, 2024). As the Court noted

in that case, “Plaintiff’s employment status and potential earnings over the last twelve months 

need to be accurately reported before this Court can determine whether Plaintiff is eligible to 

proceed IFP in this action.” (Id. at 3).

\\\

1 See 1:24-cv-00199-JLT-SKO; 1:24-cv-00200-NODJ-BAM; 1:24-cv-00203-JLT-HBK; 1:24-cv-00204-NODJ-SAB; 

1:24-cv-00221-NODJ-HBK; and 1:24-cv-00251-EPG.

Case 1:24-cv-00476-JLT-EPG Document 3 Filed 04/29/24 Page 2 of 3
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

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s IFP application (ECF No. 2) is denied without prejudice.

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send Plaintiff a long form IFP application (AO 239).

3. Within forty-five (45) days of the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall submit 

the attached IFP application, completed and signed under penalty of perjury, or in the 

alternative, pay the $405.00 filing fee for this action.

4. No requests for extension will be granted without a showing of good cause. Failure to 

comply with this order may result in dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 29, 2024 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00476-JLT-EPG Document 3 Filed 04/29/24 Page 3 of 3