Mallone Singleton Williams Estate & Trust, acting on behalf of its living...

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE 10 MALLONE SINGLETON Case No. 2:25-cv-01505-RAJ WILLIAMS ESTATE & TRUST, 11 acting on behalf of its living ORDER beneficiary on behalf of, MALONE 12 WILLIAMS SINGLETON, 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. 15 Project S21 LLC, et al., 16 Defendants.

1 Having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable Michelle L. Peterson, United States Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff’s Response, and the remaining record, the Court finds and ORDERS: 4 (1) The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. 1 5 (2) Plaintiff’s IFP application, Dkt. # 4, is DENIED and Plaintiff is directed to pay the filing fee within thirty (30) days after entry of this Order. If no filing fee is paid within thirty days of the Court’s Order, the Clerk of Court should close the case.

8 (3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Plaintiff and to Judge Peterson.

11 Dated this 7th day of November, 2025.

12 A 14 The Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge

22 1 Plaintiff’s Response does not provide any reason to deviate from the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff does not provide any authority that he should be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis without providing necessary information regarding his ability to pay court fees and costs. In addition, it remains unclear whether Plaintiff intends to proceed on his own behalf or on behalf of the Malone Singleton Williams Estate and Trust. If the latter, Plaintiff may not proceed pro se on behalf of a trust. See C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987).