United States District Court, D. Hawaii
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO
PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF FEES OR COSTS 
DERRICK K. WATSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
November 9, 2018, Plaintiff Ronald Satish Emrit, proceeding
pro se, filed a Complaint against Apple Grove Foster Care
Agency (AGFCA). Dkt. No. 1. Emrit also filed an application
to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP
Application”). Dkt. No. 3. Because Emrit has shown
an inability to pay or give security for the filing fee, the
IFP Application is GRANTED. However, because it appears that
Emrit filed this action in the wrong venue, he is ORDERED TO
SHOW CAUSE why this case should not be dismissed without
GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED IFP
courts can authorize the commencement of any suit without
prepayment of fees or security by a person who submits an
affidavit that demonstrates an inability to pay. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). While Section 1915(a) does not
require a litigant to demonstrate absolute destitution,
Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 335
U.S. 331, 339 (1948), the applicant must nonetheless show
that he is “unable to pay such fees or give security
therefor, ” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
Emrit has made the required showing under Section 1915(a). In
the IFP Application, Emrit states that his sole monthly
income is disability payments of $805. Further, Emrit states
he has about $400 in a checking account, and owns no
automobile, real property, or other assets exceeding $30 in
value. Further, Emrit states that three individuals owe him
about $4, 500 in total. Further, Emrit states that he has
regular monthly expenses totaling $730. In light of these
figures, Emrit's income falls below the poverty threshold
identified by the Department of Health and Human
Services' (“HHS”) 2018 Poverty Guidelines.
See HHS Poverty Guidelines, available at:
-of-the-hhs-poverty-guidelines. In addition, Emrit
has insufficient assets to provide security. As a result, the
Court GRANTS the IFP Application, Dkt. No. 3.
TO SHOW CAUSE
Court liberally construes the pro se Complaint. Eldridge
v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987).
Complaint,  Emrit asserts that he is a resident
of Nevada, with a mailing address in Nevada. Compl. ¶ 4,
Dkt. No. 1. Emrit further asserts that AGFCA has various
locations throughout the country, with a principal place of
business in Nevada. Id. ¶ 5. Plaintiff makes no
allegation, though, that AGFCA operates in Hawaii. Moreover,
even a liberal construction of the Complaint does not reflect
that any of the underlying events took place in Hawaii. It is
perhaps not surprising, therefore, that Emrit does not appear
to have intended to file this case in this District. Notably,
in the Complaint, Emrit argues that the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California has jurisdiction over
this case on the grounds of diversity and federal question.
Id. ¶¶ 10-11.
light, even without Emrit's argument concerning which
district has jurisdiction, the factual allegations of the
Complaint do not suggest that venue is proper in Hawaii.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). When Emrit's
assertion regarding jurisdiction is added to the factual
allegations, it seems clear that this case should not be
brought in this District.
so the record is clear, the Court will allow Emrit an
opportunity to show cause why this case should not be
dismissed without prejudice in light of the clear
deficiencies regarding venue in the Complaint. See
28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); see also Costlow v. Weeks,
790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986) (explaining that a
district court can raise the issue of improper venue on its
may have until December 7, 2018 to respond to this Order to
Show Cause. The Court forewarns Emrit that failure to file a
response by December 7, 2018 will result in the dismissal of
this case without prejudice.