Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00754/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00754-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SHANNON O. MURPHY ESQ. SR., dba 

SHEETMETAL AND ASSOCIATES, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

LMC CONSTRUCTION, A LENNAR 

COMPANY, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:20-cv-00754-KJM-AC PS 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was accordingly referred to the 

undersigned by E.D. Cal. 302(c)(21). Plaintiff has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis 

(“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. ECF No. 2. 

 Plaintiff’s IFP application cannot be granted for two reasons. First, plaintiff does not 

make the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). According to the application, plaintiff 

received money from a “Business, profession or other self-employment” during the past 12 

months. ECF No. 2 at 2. However, plaintiff fails to disclose “the amount received and what you 

expect you will continue to receive,” stating only that his income has been “sparse,” and that his 

company’s income has averaged zero. See Id. at 1-2. Second, plaintiff appears to be seeking IFP 

status on behalf of a company. This is indicated by the case caption as well as a notation on the 

Complaint, which identifies the case as “Sheetmetal & Associates v. LMC Construction.” ECF 

Case 2:20-cv-00754-KJM-AC Document 3 Filed 04/15/20 Page 1 of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2 

No. 1 at 2. It is unclear whether “Sheetmetal & Associates” is an actual legal entity or simply a 

trade name; plaintiff refers to it as “my legal company” in his IFP application. ECF No. 2 at 2. 

Because “only a natural person may qualify for treatment in forma pauperis under § 1915,” 

plaintiff cannot seek IFP status on behalf of an entity. Rowland v. California Men's Colony, Unit 

II Men's Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 196 (1993). 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed IFP (ECF No. 2) is DENIED without prejudice to its 

renewal correcting the issues described above. 

 2. Plaintiff is granted 30 days from the date of this order to renew the IFP application in 

proper form, or to pay the filing fee. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to timely renew the IFP in 

proper form, or to pay the filing fee, may result in a recommendation that this action be 

dismissed. 

DATED: April 14, 2020 

Case 2:20-cv-00754-KJM-AC Document 3 Filed 04/15/20 Page 2 of 2