(PS) Murphy, Esq. v. LMC Construction ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHANNON O. MURPHY ESQ. SR., dba No. 2:20-cv-00754-KJM-AC PS SHEETMETAL AND ASSOCIATES, 12 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER v. 14 LMC CONSTRUCTION, A LENNAR 15 COMPANY, 16 Defendant. 17 18 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was accordingly referred to the 19 undersigned by E.D. Cal. 302(c)(21). Plaintiff has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis 20 (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. ECF No. 2. 21 Plaintiff’s IFP application cannot be granted for two reasons. First, plaintiff does not 22 make the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). According to the application, plaintiff 23 received money from a “Business, profession or other self-employment” during the past 12 24 months. ECF No. 2 at 2. However, plaintiff fails to disclose “the amount received and what you 25 expect you will continue to receive,” stating only that his income has been “sparse,” and that his 26 company’s income has averaged zero. See Id. at 1-2. Second, plaintiff appears to be seeking IFP 27 status on behalf of a company. This is indicated by the case caption as well as a notation on the 28 Complaint, which identifies the case as “Sheetmetal & Associates v. LMC Construction.” ECF WwOOe COU VEY EATING INIT ENN MOTT TRA ETE EEN PY OMe 1 | No. 1 at 2. It is unclear whether “Sheetmetal & Associates” is an actual legal entity or simply a 2 || trade name; plaintiff refers to it as “my legal company” in his IFP application. ECF No. 2 at 2. 3 || Because “only a natural person may qualify for treatment in forma pauperis under § 1915,” 4 || plaintiff cannot seek IFP status on behalf of an entity. Rowland v. California Men's Colony, Unit 5 || UMen's Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 196 (1993). 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. Plaintiffs request to proceed IFP (ECF No. 2) is DENIED without prejudice to its 8 || renewal correcting the issues described above. 9 2. Plaintiff is granted 30 days from the date of this order to renew the IFP application in 10 || proper form, or to pay the filing fee. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to timely renew the IFP in 11 || proper form, or to pay the filing fee, may result in a recommendation that this action be 12 || dismissed. 13 || DATED: April 14, 2020 ~ 14 Hhthren— Char ALLISON CLAIRE 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28