Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Kenneth Tyrell Winslow filed a civil complaint against United Health Care in the Southern District of California, together with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and a motion for leave to electronically file documents. The complaint, as the court described it, refers to an alleged "unauthorized enrollment" but, in the court's view, says little else about what happened, when, or who was responsible. The court's order addresses only the two pending motions and does not decide the merits.
Civil litigants must ordinarily pay a $405 fee, made up of a $350 filing fee and a $55 administrative fee; the administrative fee does not apply to a litigant granted IFP status. Under 28 U.S.C. section 1915(a), a court may allow a case to proceed without prepayment based on indigency, but the plaintiff must allege poverty with some particularity, definiteness, and certainty. Winslow's financial affidavit stated that he had no income and no expenses during the previous twelve months.
The court found it implausible that Winslow received no income or benefits and incurred no expenses over an entire year.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the IFP motion without prejudice because the affidavit's claim of no income and no expenses for twelve months was implausible, so the poverty showing required by section 1915(a) was not met. The denial is not a ruling that Winslow is not indigent; it leaves him free to try again.
To proceed, Winslow must by December 1, 2026, either pay the filing fee or file a new IFP motion that accurately accounts for his income and expenses or explains how he had no expenses in the last twelve months. If he does neither by that date, the Clerk is directed to dismiss the action without prejudice and close the case. That dismissal would follow from non-compliance with the deadline, not from any ruling on the merits.
The court also denied without prejudice the motion to electronically file documents because Winslow had not submitted the information and affirmations the district requires, and directed the Clerk to give him a copy of the district's motion form. In a footnote, the court cautioned that if a new IFP motion is granted it must screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. section 1915(e)(2)(B), and that the current complaint would be subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim because it lacks facts about the alleged unauthorized enrollment and does not allege facts supporting diversity or federal question jurisdiction. The court did not dismiss the complaint on those grounds.
Key Takeaways
- An IFP affidavit reporting no income and no expenses for twelve months may be rejected as implausible, because a plaintiff must allege poverty with particularity, definiteness, and certainty.
- The denial was without prejudice, so Winslow may cure the problem by paying the fee or filing a corrected IFP motion by December 1, 2026.
- If he does neither by the deadline, the Clerk is directed to dismiss the action without prejudice and close the case.
- Electronic filing access requires the information and affirmations the district mandates, and the court supplied the form for a renewed request.
- The footnoted screening warning is not a ruling: the court said the present complaint would be subject to dismissal for pleading and jurisdictional gaps, but only if IFP status is later granted and screening occurs.
Why It Matters
This is a short, non-precedential trial-court order. It applies settled Ninth Circuit standards for IFP applications and shows that a court may test the plausibility of a financial affidavit rather than accept it at face value.
Plaintiffs seeking IFP status should describe their finances fully and consistently, and explain any unusual circumstance such as having no expenses at all. The footnote also signals what a future complaint would need: facts about what happened, when, and who was responsible, plus a basis for federal jurisdiction. The merits against United Health Care remain undecided, and nothing has been dismissed with prejudice.