White v. Pornhub 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
Davon Chadewick White,
Plaintiff,
v.
Pornhub, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-26-00548-PHX-JAT
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc.
2).
I. Legal Standards
A. Ability to Pay
“There is no formula set forth by statute, regulation, or case law to determine when
someone is poor enough to earn [in forma pauperis] IFP status.” Escobedo v. Applebees,
787 F.3d 1226, 1235 (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.” Id. at 1234 (citing Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S.
331, 339 (1948)).
The Court may also, “consider the plaintiff’s cash flow in the recent past, and the
extent to which the plaintiff has depleted his savings on nonessentials.” Hymas v. U.S.
Dep't of the Interior, 73 F.4th 763, 768 (9th Cir. 2023), cert. denied sub nom. Hymas v.
Dep't of the Interior, 144 S. Ct. 2604 (2024). The Court may also impose a partial filing
Case 2:26-cv-00548-JAT Document 5 Filed 02/03/26 Page 1 of 4

- 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
fee. Id. at 767.
B. Screening – 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)
Congress provided with respect to in forma pauperis cases that a
district court “shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines” that
the “allegation of poverty is untrue” or that the “action or appeal” is
“frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from
such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). While much of section 1915 outlines
how prisoners can file proceedings in forma pauperis, section 1915(e) applies
to all in forma pauperis proceedings, not just those filed by prisoners. Lopez
v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (“section 1915(e) applies to all
in forma pauperis complaints”). “It is also clear that section 1915(e) not only
permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint
that fails to state a claim.” Id. Therefore, this court must dismiss an in forma
pauperis complaint if it fails to state a claim or if it is frivolous or malicious.
Kennedy v. Andrews, 2005 WL 3358205, *2 (D. Ariz. 2005).
“The standard for determining whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a
claim.” Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012); see also
Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (noting that
screening pursuant to § 1915A “incorporates the familiar standard applied in
the context of failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6)”).
Hairston v. Juarez, No. 22-CV-01801-BAS-WVG, 2023 WL 2468967, at *2 (S.D. Cal.
Mar. 10, 2023).
Because Plaintiff has moved to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court will screen the
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) before it is allowed to be served.
II. Discussion
A. Ability to Pay
In his motion, Plaintiff claims to have no income, but states he has a 13,300.00
certificate of deposit. (Doc. 2). Plaintiff claims to have approximately $600.00 in monthly
expenses. Plaintiff gives no explanation of how he pays for those expenses. Plaintiff
claims he has been “homeless” for the last 13 years. The Court finds Plaintiff cannot pay
the filing fee and still afford the necessities of life. Thus, the motion to proceed in forma
pauperis will be granted.
Case 2:26-cv-00548-JAT Document 5 Filed 02/03/26 Page 2 of 4

- 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
B. Screening
Plaintiff did not write out his claims in his complaint. (Doc. 1 at 4). Instead, he
attached a document. (Doc. 1 at 6). The attached document appears to be a demand letter
written to one of the Defendants. It does not set out counts, causes of action, or legal
theories against any Defendant. (Doc. 1 at 6-8).
In summary, Plaintiff alleges in his complaint that he made adult videos of himself
and posted them on Defendant Pornhub’s platform. (Id.). This allegation is the factual
premise on which Plaintiff bases his entire complaint. Plaintiff then makes a series of
seemingly irrelevant statements throughout the complaint. (Id. (stating, for example,
“Again, Happy New Year, 2026.”).
As far as the Court can determine, Plaintiff’s major “complaint” is that his videos
are no longer accessible because of State age verification laws that have been enacted. He
seeks, “$3 million and my videos to be immediately released forever.” (Id. at 8).
In essence, Plaintiff complains that Defendants are complying with an Arizona law
that requires age verification to access adult content. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 18-701 (2025).
The United States Supreme Court has upheld a similar age verification law finding such a
law does not violate the First Amendment. Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton, 145 S.
Ct. 2291 (2025). Thus, Arizona’s law is analogously valid, and Plaintiff does not state a
claim against Defendants for their actions in complying with the law.
This defect in the complaint cannot be cured by amendment. Futility of amendment
alone is a basis for the Court to not grant leave to amend. Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815,
845 (9th Cir. 1995).
Additionally, the Court notes that, per Plaintiff’s complaint, all three Defendants are
based in foreign countries. (Doc. 1 at 7 (stating that Defendants’ primary offices are in
Cyprus, Canada, and the Czech Republic respectively). In screening a complaint under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), it is appropriate for this Court to also screen the complaint for personal
jurisdiction and venue. Murray v. King Cnty. Ct., No. 3:23-CV-01899-AR, 2024 WL
169681, at *1 (D. Or. Jan. 16, 2024); Packwood v. County of Contra Costa, Case No. 3:22-
Case 2:26-cv-00548-JAT Document 5 Filed 02/03/26 Page 3 of 4

- 4 -
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
cv-0219-ART-CLB, 2023 WL 2349390, at *3 (D. Nev. Mar. 2, 2023). Here, Plaintiff has
made no allegations about Defendants’ contacts with this forum that would give this Court
personal jurisdiction over any of the Defendants. Thus, even if Plaintiff could state a claim,
personal jurisdiction appears to be lacking as to each Defendant. For this alternative reason,
any amendment to the complaint against these Defendants is likely futile.
III. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is dismissed, and the Clerk of the
Court shall enter judgment accordingly.
Dated this 3rd day of February, 2026.
Case 2:26-cv-00548-JAT Document 5 Filed 02/03/26 Page 4 of 4