1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEPHEN FAVIS, No. 2:25-cv-1082-DAD-SCR 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

14 O-FILM GLOBAL (HK) TRADING

LIMITED, A CORPORATION UNDER

15 THE LAWS OF HONG KONG, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this matter, which is accordingly referred to the 19 undersigned by Local Rule 302(c)(21). Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed 20 in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and the affidavit required by that statute. ECF No. 2; see 28 U.S.C. 21 § 1915(a)(1) (authorizing the commencement of an action “without prepayment of fees or 22 security” by a person that is unable to pay such fees). 23 The motion makes an insufficient showing to proceed IFP. The Ninth Circuit has 24 recognized “[o]ne need not be absolutely destitute to obtain benefits” of the IFP statute. Esobedo 25 v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted). However, “a plaintiff 26 seeking IFP status must allege poverty with some particularity, definiteness, and certainty.” Id. 27 (internal citation and quotation omitted). 28 //// 1 The current application contains a meaningful omission. Plaintiff states that he receives 2 $3,649 in income from real property, yet he lists no assets. ECF No. 2 at 1-2. It seems 3 implausible that Plaintiff receives $3,649 in income from real property yet lists no real property 4 as an asset. 5 Moreover, it appears that Plaintiff could pay the filing fee in this case. Plaintiff states his 6 monthly expenses are $2,319, so his monthly income exceeds his monthly expenses by $1,330. 7 Id. at 4-5. The filing fee is only $405. 8 Plaintiff does state in the application that he is in bankruptcy proceedings and references 9 Case No. 25-20501. Id. at 5. A court may independently take judicial notice of facts that are not 10 subject to reasonable dispute because they can be “accurately and readily determined from 11 sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. §§ 201(b)(2), (c). The 12 Court takes judicial notice of Case No. 25-20501, filed in the United States Bankruptcy Court for 13 the Eastern District of California on February 4, 2025. 14 Plaintiff listed $4 million worth of real property among his assets in that case. Summary 15 Assets and Liabilities for Non-Individuals at 1, In re Stephen Donald Favis (No. 25-20501), ECF 16 No.27 at 1. Plaintiff also reported owning three vehicles. Id. at 3-4. This income and these 17 assets were reported on bankruptcy schedules and signed under penalty of perjury, yet all were 18 omitted from the motion to proceed IFP in this case. 19 Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis fails to demonstrate any financial 20 burden or inability to pay filing fees in this action. 21 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 22 1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed IFP (ECF No. 2) is DENIED. 23 2. Plaintiff shall pay the filing fee within 30 days of the date of this Order. 24 3. Alternatively, Plaintiff may file, within 30 days, a renewed application to proceed IFP to 25 address the deficiencies set forth herein. 26 //// 27 //// 28 //// ] 4. If Plaintiff does not pay the filing fee or file a renewed motion for IFP within 30 days, the 2 Court will recommend that this action claims be DISMISSED. 3 || DATED: August 29, 2025 4

6 SEAN C. RIORDAN 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28