1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3 Erica CARTER, Case No.: 25-cv-2532-AGS-DEB
4 Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING IFP MOTION
5 v. (ECF 2) AND DISMISSING
COMPLAINT
6 STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
7 Defendant.
8
Plaintiff Erica Carter moves to proceed in forma pauperis, that is, without paying
9
the usual $405 in court fees. See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999)
10
(“An action may proceed despite failure to pay the filing fees only if the party is granted
11
IFP status.”); 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (“filing fee of $350”); Judicial Conference Schedule of
12
Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2023) (“Administrative fee” of
13
“$55”). Carter’s only asset is her car; her monthly income and cash hardly cover her
14
monthly expenses; and she has an eight-year-old dependent. (See generally ECF 3.) She
15
thus need not pay the filing fees. See Blount v. Saul, No. 21-CV-0679-BLM, 2021 WL
16
1561453, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2021) (“[A] party need not be completely destitute to
17
proceed IFP.”).
18
Next, the Court must screen the complaint and dismiss it if it is “frivolous” or “fails
19
to state a claim.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Carter’s complaint stumbles over the
20
threshold issue of Article III standing. To have standing to sue, among other things, a
21
plaintiff “must have suffered” a “concrete and particularized” “injury in fact.” Lujan v.
22
Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). Carter has not suffered any such injury;
23
she instead styles herself as an “advocate for justice on behalf of” her incarcerated husband.
24
(ECF 1, at 2.) “While a non-attorney may appear pro se” on her own behalf, she “has no
25
authority to appear as an attorney for others. . . .” Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d
26
874, 877 (9th. Cir. 1997) (quotation marks omitted). Because Carter does not appear to be
27
an attorney—and the only alleged injuries are to her husband, not to herself—she lacks
28
1 || standing to prosecute this action. So, her complaint is dismissed.
2 Carter’s IFP request is GRANTED, and her complaint is DISMISSED without
3 || prejudice and with leave to amend. Any amended complaint is due by December 12, 2025.
4 Dated: October 29, 2025
6 Hon. Andrew G. Schopler
4 United States District Judge
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.