Opinion
24-cv-00275-DKW-RT
07-22-2024
AGE REVERSAL UNITY, Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII AT MANOA, et al., Defendants.
ORDER (1) DENYING APPLICATIONS TO PROCEED IN DISTRICT COURT WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF FEES AND COSTS; AND (2) DISMISSING COMPLAINT
Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d), the Court elects to decide these matters without a hearing.
Derrick K. Watson Chief United States District Judge
On June 26, 2024, Plaintiff Age Reversal Unity filed a Complaint, alleging that Defendants-several universities and colleges in the State of Hawai‘i- violated various constitutional rights and committed several state-law torts by “fail[ing] to establish academic programs dedicated to the study and advancement of human immortality.” Dkt. No. 1 at 4. Shortly thereafter, on July 5, 2024, Age Reversal Unity filed two applications to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. Nos. 5 & 6.
Defendants include: University of Hawai‘i at Manoa, University of Hawai‘i at Hilo, University of Hawai‘i-West O‘ahu, University of Hawai‘i Maui College, Hawai‘i Pacific University, Chaminade University of Honolulu, Brigham Young University-Hawai‘i, Hawai‘i Community College, Honolulu Community College, Kapi‘olani Community College, Kaua‘i Community College, Leeward Community College, and Windward Community College. Dkt. No. 1 at 1.
Age Reversal Unity filed both the short form, Dkt. No. 5, and long form, Dkt. No. 6, applications.
I. IFP Application
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), federal courts may authorize the commencement of suit without prepayment of fees or securities by a person who submits an affidavit which demonstrates that they lack the ability to pay. This statute, however, does not apply to corporations, partnerships, community associations, or any other entity-rather, “only a natural person may qualify for treatment in forma pauperis under § 1915.” Rowland v. California Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 196 (1993). Here, Age Reversal Unity represents that it is “a company dedicated to the advancement of human immortality as a scientific and academic discipline.” Dkt. No. 1 at 9. As such, it is not eligible for in forma pauperis status, and its IFP Applications, Dkt. Nos. 5 & 6, are DENIED.
II. Screening
In addition, when a plaintiff files an action in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the Court subjects it to mandatory screening and may order the dismissal of any claim it determines “is frivolous or malicious; fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Though the Court must liberally construe a pro se complaint, Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d at 1137, the Court cannot act as counsel for a pro se litigant, including by providing the essential elements of a claim. Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004); Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).
Importantly, entities, including corporations and other business organizations, cannot appear pro se in federal court, but instead must be represented by a licensed attorney. See Rowland, 506 U.S. at 202; see also LR 81.1(b) (explaining that in the District of Hawai‘i, “[e]ntities other than individuals, including but not limited to corporations, partnerships, limited liability partnerships or corporations, trusts, community associations, and unions, must be represented by an attorney.”). Here, it appears that Age Reversal Unity lacks such representation. As such, the Complaint must be DISMISSED. See Quality Pro. Indus., Inc. v. Sun Power, 2015 WL 12838142, at *1 (D. Haw. Mar. 19, 2015) (explaining that the complaint was subject to dismissal without prejudice where the corporate plaintiff lacked representation by licensed counsel); LR 81.1(a) (warning pro se litigants that their cases may be dismissed for failure to comply with the Local Rules).
Although the Complaint is signed and filed by Ali Afshar, it does not appear that Afshar is a licensed attorney in the State of Hawaii. See Dkt. No. 1 at 5, 17; see also Member Directory, HAWAII STATE BAR ASS'N, https://hsba.org/HSBA2020/ForthePublic/FindaLawyer/HSBA2020/Public/FindaLawy er.aspx?hkey=5850e9dd-227b-4556-8ec8-cf8878106f77 (enter “Ali” in the “First name” field, “Afshar” in the “Last name” field, and select “Find.”). Moreover, even if Afshar is licensed in another U.S. jurisdiction, there is no indication that he has applied to appear pro hac vice in this case. See LR 83.1(c)(2).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, Age Reversal Unity's IFP Applications, Dkt. Nos. 5 & 6, are DENIED and the Complaint, Dkt. No. 1, is DISMISSED. Should Age Reversal Unity wish to proceed with this case, it must pay the filing fee and have counsel appear by August 9, 2024. The Court cautions Age Reversal
Unity that failure to comply with the guidance in this Order by August 9, 2024 will result in the automatic dismissal of this action without prejudice or further notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.