From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sun v. Johnson

United States District Court, District of Nevada
Jan 4, 2022
2:21-cv-02180-APG-EJY (D. Nev. Jan. 4, 2022)

Opinion

2:21-cv-02180-APG-EJY

01-04-2022

JIANMIN SUN, Plaintiff, v. RACHEL L. JOHNSON and CARRIE TEAGER, Defendants.


ORDER

ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion to Proceed Pro Se (ECF No. 8). Plaintiff is advised that no motion is required to proceed without counsel. Therefore, Plaintiffs Motion is denied as unnecessary.

To the extent that Plaintiff intends to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis, Plaintiffs application is incomplete. Local Rule LSR 1-1 requires such an application to “be made on the form provided by the court and must include a financial affidavit disclosing the applicant's income, assets, expenses, and liabilities.” Plaintiff may file a complete IFP application on the proper form; however, the Court advises that, due to an apparent lack of jurisdiction over the action, to do so would likely be inefficient.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Proceed Pro Se (ECF No. 8) is DENIED as moot.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent Plaintiffs Motion to Proceed Pro Se is construed as an application to proceed in forma pauperis, the Motion is DENIED without prejudice. 1


Summaries of

Sun v. Johnson

United States District Court, District of Nevada
Jan 4, 2022
2:21-cv-02180-APG-EJY (D. Nev. Jan. 4, 2022)
Case details for

Sun v. Johnson

Case Details

Full title:JIANMIN SUN, Plaintiff, v. RACHEL L. JOHNSON and CARRIE TEAGER, Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, District of Nevada

Date published: Jan 4, 2022

Citations

2:21-cv-02180-APG-EJY (D. Nev. Jan. 4, 2022)