United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS [ECF NO. 1] AND COMPLAINT [ECF NO. 1-1]
FERENBACH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
the Court is Plaintiff Stephanie Gordon's Application for
Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) and
Complaint (ECF No. 1-1). Plaintiff demonstrates an inability
to pay her filing fee, but she does not state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. Therefore, the Court grants her
application to proceed in forma pauperis and orders
that her complaint be dismissed without prejudice.
FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION
potential plaintiff must pay a filling fee to commence a
civil action in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). The
Court may allow a plaintiff to proceed in forma
pauperis, without prepayment of the filing fee, if the
plaintiff can demonstrate an inability to pay or give
security for the fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The
presiding judge has discretion to determine whether the
plaintiff is unable to pay or give security. Lasko v.
Hampton & Hampton Collections, LLC, No.
2:15-cv-01110-APG-VCF, 2015 WL 5009787, at *1 (D. Nev. Aug.
21, 2015). The judge bases this determination on the
information submitted by the plaintiff. Id.
Gordon's in forma pauperis application states
she has been unemployed since 2016 and homeless since
February 13, 2018. (ECF No. 1 at 1). Plaintiff reports
financial aid from the College of Southern Nevada.
(Id.). She receives $3047 for each academic semester
(Fall, Spring, and Summer). (Id.). Plaintiff claims
she spent most of her financial aid from the Summer 2019
session on her late brother's funeral expenses.
(Id.). In expenses, Plaintiff claims student loans,
which she will start paying after graduation. (Id.).
She also claims outstanding tickets from the City of
Henderson in the amount of $1557, not including damages.
(Id. at 2). In assets, Plaintiff claims a 2009 Ford
Escape, which she uses for shelter. (Id.). Overall,
Plaintiff claims no monthly income other than her financial
aid, which is intended for the expenses of education such as
buying books. Because of Plaintiff's homeless status, her
lack of employment, and her school expenses, this Court finds
she has demonstrated an inability to pay the filing fee.
Therefore, her application to proceed in forma
pauperis (ECF No. 1) is granted.
the Court grants an in forma pauperis application,
it must screen the case. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The Court
must dismiss a case if the action is legally frivolous or
malicious, seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief, or fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2). Relief can be granted on a claim if it contains
sufficient facts that, when accepted as true, make the claim
plausible. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009). In making this determination, the presiding judge
accepts all material allegations in the complaint as true and
construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.
Russell v. Landrieu, 621 F.2d 1037, 1039-42 (9th
Gordon's Complaint arises from a series of citations
issued to her by the Henderson Police Department and other
alleged interactions with police. (ECF No. 1-1 at 4, 5).
Plaintiff alleges that in late February or early March 2019 a
female officer erroneously issued Plaintiff a trespassing
warning while Plaintiff was sleeping in her Ford.
(Id. at 5). Plaintiff claims that on March 20, the
same female officer erroneously issued her a ticket (reasons
unspecified) when Plaintiff attempted to speak with a group
of officers in a church parking lot. (Id.). On March
23rd, Plaintiff alleges someone tried to run her over in the
parking lot of a gas station. (Id.). Plaintiff
alleges that more vehicles tried to hit her a few days later
as she “was siting perfectly still.”
(Id.). Plaintiff received two more traffic tickets
(reasons unspecified) within a week of these incidents.
(Id.). Plaintiff alleges these tickets were a result
of the Henderson Police putting Plaintiff “on the[ir]
radar, ” after her contacts with the unnamed female
officer. (See id.).
Court has jurisdiction over this case because it arises under
federal law. Federal courts have jurisdiction if the action
arises under federal law. The District Court of Nevada is the
correct venue because all the events or omissions giving rise
to the claim occurred in the judicial District of Nevada.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(3).
alleges violations of:
1. Article 4, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution;
2. 42 U.S.C. § 1985, Conspiracy to Interfere with Civil