# Opinion

> District Court, E.D. California · January 5, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11236102

## Case

- **Full name:** Mohibullah Ahmadzai v. County of Sacramento, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** January 5, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11236102

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 MOHIBULLAH AHMADZAI, Case No. 2:25-cv-02625-DC-CSK
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE
PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO PROCEED
14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., IFP
15 Defendants. (ECF Nos. 2, 3)
16
17 Plaintiff Mohibullah Ahmadzai is representing himself in this action and seeks
18 leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.1 (ECF No. 2.)
19 For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request to proceed IFP
20 without prejudice.
21 I. LEGAL STANDARDS
22 All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in any district court of the
23 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee. See
24 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a party's failure to pay the filing fee
25 only if the party is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
26 § 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); Rodriguez v.
27
1 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R.
28 Civ. P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c).
1 Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). To qualify to proceed in forma pauperis, the
2 litigant must submit an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets they possess.
3 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The affidavit must also state that the person is unable to pay the
4 fees or give security. Id. The affidavit must provide “sufficient details concerning [the
5 applicant’s] income, assets, and expenditures[.]” Williams v. Cnty. of Ventura, 443 F.
6 App’x 232, 233 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th
7 Cir. 1981) (an affidavit claiming poverty in support of a motion made under
8 28 U.S.C. § 1915 must state the relevant facts “with some particularity, definiteness, and
9 certainty”).
10 II. DISCUSSION
11 A. Plaintiff’s Request to Proceed IFP
12 Plaintiff’s IFP application indicates he receives the following income:
13 approximately $1,578/monthly in Cash Aid; approximately $906/monthly in CalFresh;
14 and $9,400 in Financial Aid for “Fall 2025.” ECF No. 2 ¶ 3. It is not clear how many
15 months Plaintiff’s financial aid covers to determine whether Plaintiff is unable to pay the
16 fees or give security as required pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Plaintiff's IFP
17 application lacks sufficient detail to establish that he is entitled to prosecute this case
18 without paying the required fees. See Williams, 443 F. App’x at 233. Plaintiff will be
19 provided an opportunity to file an amended IFP application. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request
20 to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is DENIED without prejudice to its renewal.
21 Plaintiff is warned that failure to pay the filing fee or submit a complete IFP application
22 with sufficient detail by the prescribed deadline may result in a recommendation that this
23 action be dismissed.
24 B. Plaintiff’s Request for Service
25 Plaintiff has also filed a request for service of the summons and Complaint. (ECF
26 No. 3.) This request is premature as the Court must first determine whether IFP is
27 appropriate and if it is, the Court must screen the complaint and dismiss any claims that
28 are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seek
1 | monetary relief against an immune defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Accordingly,
2 | Plaintiff's request for service (ECF No. 3) is DENIED as premature.
3 | Ill. CONCLUSION
4 In accordance with the above, IT |S ORDERED that:
5 1. Plaintiff's request for service (ECF No. 3) is DENIED as premature;
6 2. Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is DENIED
7 without prejudice; and
8 3. Plaintiff must pay the filing fee or file a complete and signed application to
9 proceed IFP within thirty (30) days from the date of this order.
10
11 | Dated: January 5, 2026 C ii $ \U
12 CHI SOO KIM
43 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
14 || 4, ahma2625.25
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11236102. Public record. Not legal advice.