Rooh-Parvar v. NewLane Finance Company et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Farid M Rooh-Parvar,
Plaintiff,
v.
NewLane Finance Company, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-26-03528-PHX-DWL
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis (Doc. 2), which the Court denies.
The Court cannot find that Plaintiff has established the level of financial need that
would allow Plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis. Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226,
1234 (9th Cir. 2015) (“An affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient where it
alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life. . . .
As this court has recognized, one need not be absolutely destitute to obtain benefits of the
in forma pauperis statute. Nonetheless, a plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty
with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.”) (citations and quotation marks
omitted).
Plaintiff’s gross monthly income is $5,500. He has one minor daughter. Plaintiff’s
monthly income equates to an annual income of approximately $66,000, which far exceeds
the current federal poverty guidelines for a two-person household ($21,640).1 Badillo v.
1 Available at https://aspe.hhs.gov/topics/poverty-economic-mobility/poverty-
guidelines/prior-hhs-poverty-guidelines-federal-register-references/2026-poverty-
Case 2:26-cv-03528-DWL Document 8 Filed 06/04/26 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 2020 WL 2494575, *3 (E.D. Cal. 2020) (“In assessing whether a
certain income level meets the poverty threshold under Section 1915(a)(1), courts look to
the federal poverty guidelines developed each year by the Department of Health and
Human Services.”). Plaintiff’s expenses are high ($4,519 per month), but they do not
reflect unusual circumstances that are beyond Plaintiff’s control (e.g., high medical bills),
aside from paying $100 per month in alimony and/or child support. Thus, Plaintiff can
“pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234.
“Courts have consistently held that IFP status should not be granted where an applicant can
pay the filing fee with acceptable sacrifice to other expenses.” Valentine v. Granville
Realty, Inc., 2025 WL 1839935, *2 (E.D. Cal. 2025).
Plaintiff asserts that divorce “has taken everything” he had (Doc. 2 at 5), and the
Court notes that the allegations in the complaint point to business losses (Doc. 1), such that
Plaintiff, a doctor and business owner, is presently enduring financial difficulties to which
he is not accustomed. “The Court is sympathetic to Plaintiff’s financial constraints, [but]
to qualify for IFP status, a plaintiff must be experiencing such poverty that the plaintiff
cannot reasonably pay court costs without forgoing the normal necessities of life.”
Reardon v. O’Malley, 2024 WL 2160514, *2 (D. Idaho 2024).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
(Doc. 2) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff must pay the filing fee by June 25,
2026.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court, without further notice, shall
dismiss this case without prejudice if Plaintiff fails to pay the filing fee by June 25, 2026.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting the motion to allow electronic filing by a
party appearing without an attorney (Doc. 4) in this case only. The party is required to
comply with all rules outlined in the District of Arizona’s Case Management/Electronic
guidelines-computations
Case 2:26-cv-03528-DWL Document 8 Filed 06/04/26 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, have access to the required
equipment and software, have a personal electronic mailbox of sufficient capacity to send
and receive electronic notice of case related transmissions, be able to electronically
transmit documents to the court in .pdf, complete the necessary forms to register as a user
with the Clerk’s Office within five days of the date of this Order (if not already on file),
register as a subscriber to PACER (Public Access to Electronic Records) within five days
of the date of this Order (if this has not already occurred), and comply with the privacy
policy of the Judicial Conference of the United States and the E-Government Act of 2002.
Any misuse of the ECF system will result in immediate discontinuation of this privilege
and disabling of the password assigned to the party.
Dated this 4th day of June, 2026.
Case 2:26-cv-03528-DWL Document 8 Filed 06/04/26 Page 3 of 3