1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Annette Walker, Terry James Walker, and Case No.: 22-CV-00860 Davis Bros. Lumber Co., 12 Plaintiff, ORDER (1) DENYING MOTION 13 FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN v. 14 FORMA PAUPERIS AND (2) SSA, et al., DIRECTING PLAINTIFF 15 CORPORATION TO OBTAIN Defendants. 16 COUNSEL 17 [ECF No. 2] 18 19

20 Plaintiffs Annette Walker, Terry James Walker, and Davis Bros. Lumber Co. filed 21 the present action on June 10, 2022, and Plaintiff Annette Walker subsequently moved for 22 leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). ECF Nos. 1–2. For the reasons discussed 23 below, the application to proceed IFP (ECF No. 2) is denied. 24 Unless the filing fee is paid, each natural person seeking to proceed as a plaintiff— 25 in this case, Annette Walker and Terry James Walker—must file his or her own separate 26 application to proceed IFP. See Gulbransen v. Far N. Reg’l Ctr., No. CIV S-11-1231 JAM, 27

, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 17, 2011). Here, it appears that the pending 28 1 application was solely for Plaintiff Annette Walker, who signed the affidavit in support of 2 the application. See ECF No. 2 at 1. If Plaintiff Terry James Walker also seeks to proceed 3 IFP, he must file his own separate IFP application. 4 As to Plaintiff Annette Walker, the Court finds that the submitted application (ECF 5 No. 2) is incomplete.1 She has failed to disclose (1) the average monthly income amount 6 received by her spouse; (2) the income amount expected next month for herself and her 7 spouse; (3) the amount of cash that her spouse has; (4) any money her spouse has in bank 8 accounts or other financial institutions; (5) the amount owed to her or her spouse by 9 Defendant State of Louisiana; (6) whether the rent or home-mortgage payment included 10 real estate taxes or property insurance; and (7) the average monthly expenses of her spouse. 11 Answers to Questions 9 and 10 of the application are also missing. See ECF No. 2 at 5. 12 Furthermore, Plaintiff Davis Bros. Lumber Co. cannot proceed pro se or IFP because 13 it is a corporation. While parties generally may plead and conduct their own cases, see 28

, “[o]nly natural persons representing their individual interests in propria 15 persona may appear in court without representation by an attorney.” Civ. L.R. 83.3(j). “All 16 other parties, including corporations, partnerships and other legal entities, may appear in 17 court only through an attorney permitted to practice pursuant to Civil Local Rule 83.3.” 18 Id.; see also Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony,

, 201–02 (1993) (“It has been the 19 law for the better part of two centuries . . . that a corporation may appear in the federal 20 courts only through licensed counsel.”). Similarly, the statute that allows a party to proceed 21 IFP,

(a), only extends to individuals, not to artificial entities like 22 corporations. Robert Curtis Bass, Inc. v. Cnty. of San Diego, No. 08CV2135MMANLS, 23

, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2009) (citing Rowland,

)). 24 25 1 Neither the Complaint (ECF No. 1) nor application to proceed IFP (ECF No. 2) clearly 26 defines the relationship between Plaintiffs. Because Plaintiff Annette Walker indicates that 27 Defendants owed her spouse “1/2” on her application, the Court assumes that she has a spouse, and the required information pertaining to her spouse must be disclosed. See ECF 28 1 || Plaintiff Davis Bros. Lumber Co. must, therefore, appear in court through an attorney who 2 allowed to practice in the Southern District of California. 3 Accordingly, Plaintiff Annette Walker’s Motion for leave to proceed IFP (ECF No. 4 is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiffs Annette Walker and Terry James Walker have 5 |luntil September 30, 2022, to cither (1) pay the $402 filing fee,?7 OR (2) both file 6 || applications to proceed IFP that provide with “particularity, definiteness, and certainty” the 7 ||required information. See Escobedo v. Applebees,

(9th Cir. 2015). 8 || The Court directs Plaintiffs to fully complete Form AO 239 (Rev. 01/15), “Application to 9 Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form),” which 1s 10 available on the Southern District of California website. 11 In addition, Davis Bros. Lumber Co., if it seeks to proceed as a plaintiff, is required 12 ||to obtain legal representation and enter an appearance through counsel on or before 13 ||September 30, 2022. If it fails to do so, the Court will dismiss it from this action. See 14 || Robert Curtis Bass,

, at *1 (warning that corporate plaintiff's failure to 15 || timely obtain legal representation would result in dismissal). 16 IT SO ORDERED. Dated: August 22, 2022 r C Lowe on. Robert S. Huie 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 || 26 th addition to a $350 fee, civil litigants, other than those granted leave to proceed IFP, 27 ||must pay an additional administrative fee of $52. See

(a) (Judicial 28 Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (effective Dec. 1, 2020)).