Muhammad v. Kaiser Permanente Group
- 3:25-cv-08265
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Muhammad v. Kaiser Permanente, the court ordered Danial Muhammad to explain why his fee-waiver application should not be denied.
Danial Muhammad, who must clarify his finances or pay the filing fee by November 21, 2025; the case could face a dismissal recommendation if he does neither.
What happened
Danial Muhammad, representing himself, asked to proceed without paying the $405 filing fee in his case against Kaiser Permanente Group, Inc., and others. He also sought court assistance with serving the defendants if the case could proceed.
The court found that Muhammad’s financial information was contradictory or incomplete. He reported monthly income of $3,700 to $4,100 and expenses of $3,340, but also reported supporting his spouse with $3,800 each month, separate finances with that spouse, a possible $950,000 home, a mortgage payment, and rent.
The court, whose name is not clear in the supplied opinion text, ordered Muhammad to file a supplemental application or declaration clarifying his income and expenses, or pay the filing fee, by November 21, 2025. The court did not yet deny the application, but warned that failing to respond or pay could lead to a recommendation that the case be dismissed.
The detailed version
- Muhammad v. Kaiser Permanente Group · No. 3:25-cv-08265
- Nov. 7, 2025
Background
Danial Muhammad, proceeding without a lawyer, filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning to pursue the civil action without prepaying the filing fee. The application could also allow a court-appointed agent, typically the U.S. Marshal, to serve the defendants if the complaint is not subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Financial information
Muhammad reported net monthly income ranging from $3,700 to $4,100 and monthly expenses of $3,340, including car and credit-card payments, rent, food, utilities, and clothing. He stated that he was married and contributed $3,800 per month to support his spouse, while also stating that his spouse worked and that their finances were separate. He checked “No” when asked whether he owned or was buying a home, but the application also listed a home with an estimated market value of $950,000 and a $2,300 mortgage payment. The application listed $1,000 in rent as well.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that a person seeking this filing-fee waiver need not be completely destitute, but must describe poverty with particularity, definiteness, and certainty. Based on Muhammad’s information, the court could not determine whether he lacked enough funds to qualify. It identified unresolved questions about whether he owned a home, whether he paid rent, a mortgage, or both, whether he financially supported his spouse despite stating that their finances were separate, and whether he had undisclosed income to cover his expenses.
Order
The court ordered Muhammad to show cause—meaning to explain—why his application should not be denied. By November 21, 2025, he had to file a supplemental application or additional declaration clearly listing his monthly expenses and sources of income, or pay the $405 filing fee. The court warned that failing to respond or pay could result in a report and recommendation that the case be dismissed for failure to prosecute, failure to comply with a court order, and failure to pay the filing fee. The opinion does not state that the application was denied or that the case was dismissed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.