Le’ola Fletcher v. TransUnion, LLC, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 LE’OLA FLETCHER, No. 2:25–cv–02654–DJC-SCR Plaintiff, ORDER v. TRANSUNION, LLC, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this matter, which is referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Before the court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (authorizing the commencement of an action “without prepayment of fees or security” by a person that is unable to pay such fees). ECF No. 2. The motion makes an insufficient showing to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). The Ninth Circuit has recognized “one need not be absolutely destitute to obtain benefits” of the IFP statute. Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). However, “a plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” Id. (internal citation and quotation omitted). The current application does not…