Erica Carter v. State of California
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Erica Carter moved to proceed in forma pauperis and filed a complaint alleging injuries to her incarcerated husband. The court granted the IFP motion but dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of Article III standing, allowing leave to amend.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to proceed in forma pauperis granted“Carter’s IFP request is GRANTED” | agree with court The court found that Carter's financial situation (assets limited to a car, income barely covering expenses, dependent child) met the threshold for IFP status, consistent with the principle that a party need not be completely destitute. |
Complaint dismissed without prejudice“her complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice and with leave to amend” | agree with court The court determined that Carter lacked Article III standing because she alleged injuries only to her husband, not to herself, and she is not an attorney authorized to represent another. This is a correct application of the injury-in-fact requirement and the rule against non-attorney representation of others. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the standard for IFP status and the Article III standing requirement. It accurately cites Lujan for the injury-in-fact requirement and Johns for the limitation on pro se representation of others. The dismissal without prejudice is appropriate given the curable nature of the standing defect (if the plaintiff can allege her own injury).
Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Erica CARTER, Case No.: 25-cv-2532-AGS-DEB 4 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IFP MOTION 5 v. (ECF 2) AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT 6 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 7 Defendant.
8 Plaintiff Erica Carter moves to proceed in forma pauperis, that is, without paying 9 the usual $405 in court fees. See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999) 10 (“An action may proceed despite failure to pay the filing fees only if the party is granted 11 IFP status.”); 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (“filing fee of $350”); Judicial Conference Schedule of 12 Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2023) (“Administrative fee” of 13 “$55”). Carter’s only asset is her car; her monthly income and cash hardly cover her 14 monthly expenses; and she has an eight-year-old dependent. (See generally ECF 3.) She 15 thus need not pay the filing fees. See Blount v. Saul, No. 21-CV-0679-BLM, 2021 WL 16 1561453, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2021) (“[A] party need not be completely destitute to 17 proceed IFP.”). 18 Next, the Court must screen the complaint and dismiss it if it is “frivolous” or “fails 19 to state a claim.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Carter’s complaint stumbles over the 20 threshold issue of Article III standing. To have standing to sue, among other things, a 21 plaintiff “must have suffered” a “concrete and particularized” “injury in fact.” Lujan v. 22 Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). Carter has not suffered any such injury; 23 she instead styles herself as an “advocate for justice on behalf of” her incarcerated husband. 24 (ECF 1, at 2.) “While a non-attorney may appear pro se” on her own behalf, she “has no 25 authority to appear as an attorney for others. . . .” Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 26 874, 877 (9th. Cir. 1997) (quotation marks omitted). Because Carter does not appear to be 27 an attorney—and the only alleged injuries are to her husband, not to herself—she lacks 28 1 || standing to prosecute this action. So, her complaint is dismissed. 2 Carter’s IFP request is GRANTED, and her complaint is DISMISSED without 3 || prejudice and with leave to amend. Any amended complaint is due by December 12, 2025. 4 Dated: October 29, 2025 6 Hon. Andrew G. Schopler 4 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28