(PC) Ento v. State of Arkanas

BACKGROUND

21 On March 20, 2023, the Court issued an order denying, without prejudice, Plaintiff’s 22 motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) because it failed to comply with 28 U.S.C. § 23 1915(a)(1)(2). (Doc. No. 4). Specifically, Plaintiff did not submit a six-month statement and the 24 “Certificate” portion of his IFP application was blank. (Id.). Plaintiff was given twenty-one (21) 25 days to file a completed IFP application or pay the filing fee. (Id. at 2). As of the date of this 26 order, forty-two (42) days have passed, and Plaintiff has not filed a completed IFP application nor 27 paid the filing fee and the time to do so has expired. See docket. APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS A. Legal Standard An action in federal court may only proceed with concurrent payment of the filing fee if the court grants the party leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) . 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). “[A] plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). As part of…