Haugland v. Microsoft Corporation

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI‘I
THEODORE HAUGLAND,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
Defendant.
Case No. 26-cv-00190-DKW-WRP
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE APPLICATION TO
PROCEED WITHOUT
PREPAYMENT OF FEES OR
COSTS1
On April 9, 2026, Plaintiff Theodore Haugland, proceeding without counsel,
filed a Complaint against Microsoft Corporation (Microsoft), asserting numerous
tort claims and alleging that Microsoft’s “artificial intelligence system known as
Microsoft Copilot” falsely describes Haugland as “a criminal involved in fraud,
financial misconduct, violent activity, and drug-related offenses.” 	Dkt. No. 1. 	At
the same time, Haugland also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis
(“IFP Application”), Dkt. No. 3, which, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915, the
Court assesses below.
Federal courts can authorize the commencement of any suit without
prepayment of fees or security by a person who submits an affidavit that
1 Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(c), the Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without a
hearing.
Case 1:26-cv-00190-DKW-WRP Document 8 Filed 04/14/26 Page 1 of 3
PageID.<pageID>

2
demonstrates an inability to pay. 	See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). 	“[A] plaintiff
seeking IFP status must allege poverty with some particularity, definiteness and
certainty.” 	Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). 	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), an applicant
must nonetheless show an inability “to pay such fees or give security therefor,” 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a).
Here, because the IFP Application is incomplete, Haugland is yet to show an
entitlement to proceed without prepaying fees or costs in this action. 	Specifically,
while Haugland answers questions related to disability income he receives, his
checking or savings accounts, his regular monthly expenses, and his dependents, he
has failed to answer questions related to whether he receives take-home pay or
income other than disability payments, whether he owns any item of value, such as
real estate, and the amounts of his debts and to whom they are owed. 	Instead, those
matters have been left blank. 	So it is clear, every question in the IFP Application
must be answered in full, even if the answer is “zero” or “not applicable”. 	The IFP
Application, Dkt. No. 3, is, therefore, DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to
re-filing with complete answers.
Haugland may have until April 30, 2026 to either (1) file a new IFP
application consistent with the instructions above, or (2) pay the filing fee for this
Case 1:26-cv-00190-DKW-WRP Document 8 Filed 04/14/26 Page 2 of 3
PageID.<pageID>

3
action. 	The Court cautions Haugland that the failure to either file a new,
complete IFP application or pay the filing fee by April 30, 2026 will result in
the automatic dismissal of this action without prejudice.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to mail Haugland a blank Application to
Proceed In District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (AO 240).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 14, 2026 at Honolulu, Hawai‘i.
Theodore Haugland v. Microsoft Corporation; Case No. 26-cv-00190-DKW-WRP; ORDER
DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT
PREPAYMENT OF FEES OR COSTS
___________________________
Derrick K. Watson
Chief United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00190-DKW-WRP Document 8 Filed 04/14/26 Page 3 of 3
PageID.<pageID>