Dunn v. HUD Urban Development

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 EMMA DUNN, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00815-KES-BAM

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFFS EMMA 9 v. DUNN AND ALANA DUNN TO FILE A SIGNED COMPLAINT 10 HUD URBAN DEVELOPMENT, et al., ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFFS EMMA 11 Defendants. DUNN AND ALANA DUNN TO FILE LONG FORM APPLICATIONS TO PROCEED IN 12 FORMA PAUPERIS OR PAY FILING FEE 13 THIRTY DAY (30) DAY DEADLINE 14 On July 16, 2024, Emma Dunn, Ariel Dunn, Richie Dunn, Aaliyah Dunn, and Ashanti 15 Dunn (“Plaintiffs”) filed the instant civil action. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff Emma Dunn also filed an 16 application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 2.) On July 22, 2024, the Court reviewed these 17 filings, identified various deficiencies, and ordered as follows: (1) if Plaintiffs Ariel Dunn, Richie 18 Dunn, Aaliyah Dunn, and Ashanti Dunn wish to proceed in this action along with Plaintiff Emma 19 Dunn, then they shall file an amended complaint that includes the signatures of each plaintiff 20 proceeding pro se; (2) if Plaintiffs Ariel Dunn, Richie Dunn, Aaliyah Dunn, and Ashanti Dunn 21 wish to proceed in his action, then they shall file an application to proceed in forma pauperis, 22 completed and signed, or in the alternative pay the $405.00 filing fee for this action; and (3) 23 Plaintiff Emma Dunn shall file an application to proceed in forma pauperis, completed and 24 signed, or in the alternative, pay the $405.00 filing fee for this action. (Doc. 3.) 25 On August 6, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint, along with an application to 26 proceed in forma pauperis. (Docs. 4, 5.) These new filings have issues that Plaintiffs must 27 address. 28 1 1. Amended Complaint 2 The amended complaint appears to name Emma Dunn and Alana Dunn as the plaintiffs in 3 this action. (See generally Doc. 4.) However, the amended complaint was signed only by 4 Plaintiff Emma Dunn, proceeding pro se. (Id. at 6.) Plaintiffs are again advised that Local Rule 5 131(b) of the Eastern District of California requires that all pleadings “be signed by the individual 6 attorney for the party presenting them, or by the party involved if that party is appearing in 7 propria persona.” Plaintiff Emma Dunn may represent herself pro se, but she may not represent 8 anyone else pro se, even as a guardian ad litem. Each named plaintiff must sign the complaint on 9 behalf of themselves if they wish to proceed pro se in this action, or must have a licensed attorney 10 that represents them in the action sign and submit any filings. See L.R. 131(b); Johns v. County 11 of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding that a parent or guardian cannot bring 12 an action on behalf of a minor child without retaining a lawyer); C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. U.S., 13 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted), (“Although a non-attorney may appear in 14 propria persona in his own behalf, that privilege is personal to him. He has no authority to 15 appear as an attorney for others than himself.”). Therefore, if both Emma Dunn and Alana Dunn 16 wish to proceed as pro se plaintiffs in this action, then they must file an amended complaint that 17 includes both of their signatures. 18 2. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 19 Plaintiff Emma Dunn and Alana Dunn submitted what appears to be a joint application to 20 proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 4.) As was previously explained, all parties instituting any 21 civil action are required to pay the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may only 22 proceed without the payment of the filing fee if the party is granted in forma pauperis status. See 23 Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). “Where there are multiple plaintiffs in a 24 single action, the plaintiffs may not proceed in forma pauperis unless all of them demonstrate 25 inability to pay the filing fee.” Darden v. Indymac Bancorp, Inc., No. S-09-2970 JAM DAD PS, 26 2009 WL 5206637, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2009); see also Anderson v. California, No. 10 CV 27 2216 MMA (AJB), 2010 WL 4316996, at *1 (S.D. Cal Oct. 27, 2010) (“[A]lthough only one 28 filing fee needs to be paid per case, if multiple plaintiffs seek to proceed in forma pauperis, each 1 plaintiff must qualify for IFP status.”). Although Plaintiffs Emma Dunn and Alana Dunn 2 submitted a joint application, the Court cannot determine from that application if one or both of 3 them are entitled to proceed in forma pauperis in this action. Accordingly, the Court will order 4 Plaintiffs to each complete and file an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying 5 Fees or Costs (Long Form) – AO 239. If Plaintiffs are unwilling to complete and submit separate 6 long form applications, then they must pay the $405.00 filing fee for this action. 7 Conclusion and Order 8 For the reasons stated, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 9 1. If Plaintiffs Emma Dunn and Alana Dunn wish to proceed together in this action, then 10 they shall file an amended complaint that includes both of their signatures within thirty 11 (30) days from the date of this Order. 12 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to forward an Application to Proceed in District 13 Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form) – AO 239 for each plaintiff. 14 3. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this order, Plaintiffs shall each complete and file 15 an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long 16 Form) – AO 239 or, in the alternative, pay the $405.00 filing fee for this action. 17 4. No extension of time will be granted without a showing of good cause. 18 5. The failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation for dismissal of 19 this action. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21

22 Dated: October 4, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23

24 25 26 27 28