Phillis Wheatley Association and Nadia Smalley v. Joel Wohlfeil, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California denied the Phillis Wheatley Association's application to proceed in forma pauperis because an association is not entitled to the benefits of 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The court granted Nadia Smalley's application but dismissed the complaint as frivolous because she was attempting to assert claims belonging to a church or association without licensed counsel. The dismissal was without leave to amend, and the clerk was directed to enter judgment and close the case.

Holdings

1. The association could not proceed in forma pauperis because it did not sign the application or supporting affidavit and, independently, an association is not a person entitled to the benefits of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
2. Smalley was entitled to proceed in forma pauperis because her affidavit showed monthly income and expenses of $911, leaving no funds available to pay the filing fee.
3. A pro se individual may represent herself but may not represent a church, association, corporation, partnership, or other artificial entity in federal court; such entities must appear through licensed counsel.
4. The complaint was frivolous and had to be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) because Smalley, proceeding pro se, asserted only claims belonging to a church or association that she could not represent.
5. Leave to amend was denied because the complaint's defect could not be remedied by amendment: Smalley could not represent the church or association as a pro se litigant.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Phillis Wheatley Association could proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
2. Whether Nadia Smalley could proceed in forma pauperis based on her financial affidavit.
3. Whether a pro se individual may represent an unincorporated association, church, or other artificial entity in federal court.
4. Whether the complaint had to be dismissed as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) when Smalley asserted claims belonging to a church or association rather than claims belonging to herself.
5. Whether leave to amend should be granted.

Disposition

dismissed