Andre Murphy, et al. v. Aqua Finance, et al.

Murphy v. Aqua Finance · United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · January 8, 2026 · No. 2:25-cv-02995-DAD-CSK

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied Andre Murphy’s application to proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice because it lacked sufficient information about his income, assets, liabilities, and expenses. The court allowed Murphy to submit a complete application or pay the filing fee and required Murphybey Trust to obtain counsel because a legal entity may not appear pro se.

Holdings

  1. An IFP application must provide sufficient detail concerning the applicant's income, assets, liabilities, and expenses to establish eligibility; Murphy's application was insufficient because it omitted material financial information.
  2. A legal entity may not appear in the action without representation by an attorney.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Murphy's application to proceed in forma pauperis contained sufficient financial information to establish inability to pay the filing fee.
  2. Whether Murphybey Trust, as a legal entity, could appear and litigate without representation by an attorney.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (5)

  • Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007)(followed)
  • Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999)(followed)
  • Williams v. County of Ventura, 443 F. App'x 232, 233 (9th Cir. 2011)(followed)
  • United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981)(followed)
  • Caveman Foods, LLC v. jAnn Payne's Caveman Foods, LLC, 2015 WL 6736801, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2015)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…