Mallone Singleton Williams Estate & Trust v. Project S21 LLC

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: September 2, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01505
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 MALLONE SINGLETON WILLIAMS ESTATE & TRUST, acting on behalf of its 9 living beneficiary on behalf of, Case No. 25-1505-RAJ MALONE-WILLIAMS SINGLETON 10 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 PROJECT S21 LLC, et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in the 16 above-entitled action. (Dkt. # 4.) In the IFP application, Plaintiff reports a net monthly income of 17 $2,800.00, no cash on hand, $700.00 in a checking account, and $700.00 in a savings account. 18 (Id. at 2-3.) He reports no valuable property or dependents, and monthly expenses of $2,500.00. 19 (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff did not describe the specific nature of his regular monthly expenses, noting 20 only that a “trust is entitled to pay for [a]ll utilities[,] rent and phone bills.” (Id.) When asked to 21 provide further information explaining why he cannot pay court fees and costs, Plaintiff 22 summarily refers to his claim against Defendants. (Id.) 23 1 A district court may permit indigent litigants to proceed IFP upon completion of a proper 2 affidavit of indigence. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). “To qualify for in forma pauperis status, a civil 3 litigant must demonstrate both that the litigant is unable to pay court fees and that the claims he 4 or she seeks to pursue are not frivolous.” Ogunsalu v. Nair, 117 F. App’x 522, 523 (9th Cir.

5 2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 1051 (2005). To meet the first requirement, a litigant must show 6 that he or she “cannot because of his [or her] poverty pay or give security for the costs and still 7 be able to provide him[ or her]self and dependents with the necessities of life.” Adkins v. E.I. 8 DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948) (internal alterations omitted). 9 Plaintiff’s application is deficient in several respects. First, it lacks information necessary 10 for the Court to determine his ability to pay court fees and costs. Plaintiff has not provided a 11 breakdown of his regular monthly expenses, nor has he offered any explanation for why he 12 cannot use his available funds to pay the filing fee of $405.00. (Dkt. # 4 at 2.) Under these 13 circumstances, the Court is unable to determine whether Plaintiff meets the financial 14 requirements for IFP status. More significantly, Plaintiff states that he is the authorized

15 representative of the Malone Singleton Williams Estate and Trust. (Id. at 1.) The Ninth Circuit 16 has held that a trustee may not proceed pro se on behalf of a trust. C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. 17 United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987). If Plaintiff is representing the interests of the 18 trust, he must obtain counsel to represent the trust. See Maisano v. Welcher, 940 F.2d 499, 501 19 (9th Cir. 1991) (finding that the plaintiffs, who were both trustees and beneficiaries of the trust, 20 lacked standing to maintain an action on behalf of the trust as pro se litigants). Without legal 21 representation for the trust, Plaintiff’s IFP application is rendered moot. 22 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause by September 8, 2025, why the 23 Court should not recommend his IFP application be denied. Specifically, Plaintiff must: (1) 1 provide an itemized overview of his monthly expenses; (2) explain why he cannot use his 2 available funds to pay the filing fee; and (3) clarify whether he brings this claim as a trustee on 3 behalf of a trust. 4 The Clerk is directed to renote Plaintiff’s IFP application (dkt. # 4) for September 15,

5 2025, and to send copies of this order to Plaintiff and to the Honorable Richard A. Jones. 6 Dated this 2nd day of September, 2025. 7 8 A 9 MICHELLE L. PETERSON United States Magistrate Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23