IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

RUCKUS RECORDS, and GRANT 

SAXENA, Founder of Ruckus Records;

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

JEFFERY THOMAS ALLEN,

Defendant.

8:23CV167

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff “Ruckus Records, appearing through 

Founder Capt. Saxena[’s],” motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Filing No. 2.

As an initial matter, the Complaint lists Ruckus Records as a corporation 

established in the United Kingdom. Filing No. 1 at 1, 3. Under the in forma pauperis

statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the use of the word “person” refers only to individuals, not to 

artificial entities. Rowland v. California Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory Council, 506 

U.S. 194, 201–11 (1993). While the IFP motion attempts to associate Ruckus Records 

with what appears to be a natural person and co-Plaintiff Grant Saxena, proceeding as 

an entity associated with a natural person does not suffice to grant IFP status. Id. 

Therefore, the motion to proceed IFP must be denied as to Ruckus Records. 

Moreover, legal entities, as opposed to natural persons, cannot litigate in this forum 

without representation by licensed counsel. Id. at 201–02 (“It has been the law for the 

8:23-cv-00167-JFB-PRSE Doc # 5 Filed: 09/05/23 Page 1 of 3 - Page ID # 17
2

better part of two centuries . . . that a corporation may appear in the federal courts only 

through licensed counsel.”). To the extent Ruckus Records seeks to proceed after 

payment of the filing fee, it must do so with the assistance of licensed counsel or Plaintiff 

Ruckus Records will be subject to dismissal from the action. 

While unclear from the Complaint, if Plaintiff Saxena intended to proceed 

individually, the Court notes the Complaint is deficient as it contains only an electronic 

signature of Saxena as founder of Ruckus Records. Filing No. 1 at 6. Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 11 requires all pleadings “be signed” and electronic signatures may only 

be used when in compliance with NECivR 11.1. When a filing is “nonelectronic,” such as

the Complaint here, a handwritten signature is required.

Finally, if Plaintiff Saxena intended both to proceed as an individual plaintiff and 

for the IFP motion to apply to Plaintiff Saxena individually, the IFP motion is also deficient

as it does not comply with the terms of 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the statute authorizing 

proceedings in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) (requiring the plaintiff to 

submit “an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such prisoner possesses that 

the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor”). Therefore, Plaintiff 

Saxena has the choice of either submitting the $402.00 filing and administrative fees to 

the clerk’s office or submitting a request to proceed in forma pauperis that complies with 

28 U.S.C. § 1915, if Plaintiff intends to proceed individually.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Proceed IFP, Filing No. 2, is denied with 

prejudice as to Ruckus Records and without prejudice to reassertion in a motion to 

8:23-cv-00167-JFB-PRSE Doc # 5 Filed: 09/05/23 Page 2 of 3 - Page ID # 18
3

proceed in forma pauperis filed by Plaintiff Saxena, individually, that complies with 28 

U.S.C. § 1915.

2. Plaintiff Saxena shall have 30 days to obtain counsel for Ruckus Records 

and pay the $402.00 filing fees to the Clerk’s Office, amend the Complaint and allege 

claims for relief personal to Saxena in a properly signed complaint and to either pay the 

$402.00 filing fee or file a proper IFP motion if Saxena intends to proceed on his own 

behalf, or both. Failure to take said action will result in dismissal of this matter without 

further notice.

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send to Plaintiff Saxena the Form 

AO240 (“Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Affidavit”).

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to set the following pro se case 

management deadline in this matter with the following text: October 5, 2023: Check for 

response to order.

Dated this 5th day of September, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

Joseph F. Bataillon

Senior United States District Judge

8:23-cv-00167-JFB-PRSE Doc # 5 Filed: 09/05/23 Page 3 of 3 - Page ID # 19