Life’s Investments v. SBA, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
The court considered a motion to proceed in forma pauperis filed by a nonprofit organization suing federal agencies. The court denied the motion and dismissed the complaint because the plaintiff is a legal entity that cannot proceed pro se or qualify for in forma pauperis status.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to proceed in forma pauperis denied“As a result, this case must be dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee and as inappropriately filed by a non-attorney seeking to represent a legal entity.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the Supreme Court's holding in Rowland v. California Men’s Colony that only natural persons may qualify for in forma pauperis status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Since the plaintiff is a nonprofit organization, it is legally ineligible for this status. |
Complaint dismissed“As a result, this case must be dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee and as inappropriately filed by a non-attorney seeking to represent a legal entity.” | agree with court The dismissal is procedurally sound because legal entities must be represented by counsel in federal court. The plaintiff, a nonprofit, attempted to proceed pro se, which is prohibited by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 83 and local rules. The court provided a mechanism to cure the defect by paying fees and retaining counsel. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the plaintiff as a legal entity and applies the binding Supreme Court precedent from Rowland to deny IFP status. It also correctly cites the requirement for legal entities to be represented by counsel. The reasoning is direct and supported by the cited authorities and local rules.
Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 LIFE’S INVESTMENTS, Case No.: 26-cv-3018-AGS-AHG 4 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO Plaintiff, 5 PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS v. (ECF 2) AND DISMISSING 6 COMPLAINT 7 SBA, et al., 8 Defendant. 9 Self-represented plaintiff Life’s Investments, a “nonprofit organization based in 10 San Diego, California,” is suing several federal agencies and a related collections agency 11 for actions taken during the collection of a COVID-era loan. Life’s Investments requests 12 to proceed in forma pauperis, that is, without paying the court’s filing fees under 8 U.S.C. 13 § 1915. But “only a natural person may qualify for treatment in forma pauperis under 14 § 1915.” Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 15 194, 196 (1993). Moreover, as a legal entity, Life’s Investments “must be represented by 16 counsel in federal court and cannot proceed pro se.” United States v. Hardy, No. 2:24-mc- 17 00053-LK, 2025 WL 3628625, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 15, 2025). See also S.D. 18 CivLR 83.5(j) (“Only natural persons representing their individual interests in propria 19 persona may appear in court without representation by an attorney permitted to practice 20 pursuant to Civil Local Rule 83.3. All other parties, including corporations, partnerships 21 and other legal entities, may appear in court only through an attorney permitted to practice 22 pursuant to Civil Local Rule 83.3.”). “This rule also applies to a non-profit, which cannot 23 be represented by a non-attorney and cannot represent itself.” Hardy, 2025 WL 3628625, 24 at *4 (cleaned up). 25 As a result, this case must be dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee and as 26 inappropriately filed by a non-attorney seeking to represent a legal entity. By July 15, 2026, 27 plaintiff may automatically reopen the case by (1) fully paying the appropriate filing fee 28 1 || and (2) filing an appearance of counsel and new complaint signed by that counsel. 2 Dated: June 4, 2026 4 Andrew G. Schopler ; United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 a ee