Automated Summary
Key Facts
Plaintiff Jason William Dobbs initiated this case on behalf of himself and co-plaintiff Antonio Acosta, but filed an IFP application and Complaint signed only by him. The Court clarified that Dobbs cannot represent Acosta or file documents on his behalf under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court set a July 11, 2025 deadline for Acosta to file his own IFP application and signed Complaint. Dobbs also requested an extension for Acosta and that the Court direct NDOC to approve his request for privileged communications with Acosta. The Court denied the motion for extension but extended the deadline to November 3, 2025, and denied the privileged communications request without prejudice.
Issues
- The court denied the motion requesting that the Nevada Department of Corrections approve privileged communications between Dobbs and Acosta. The court found no demonstrated need for such communications at this stage, noting that Acosta must first file his IFP application and signed Complaint. Non-privileged communication channels like regular mail were deemed sufficient for coordination.
- The court addressed whether Plaintiff Jason William Dobbs, filing pro se, could file documents on behalf of co-plaintiff Antonio Acosta. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and established 9th Circuit precedent, pro se litigants lack authority to represent others. The court denied the motion to file documents on Acosta's behalf, requiring Acosta to sign all pleadings himself.
- The court granted an extension for co-plaintiff Antonio Acosta to file a complete IFP application and signed copy of the Complaint. The deadline was extended to November 3, 2025, to allow adequate time for Acosta to complete the necessary filings.
Holdings
- The Court denies Plaintiff Jason William Dobbs's motion requesting an extension for co-plaintiff Antonio Acosta to file an IFP application and signed Complaint. The Court also denies Dobbs's request that the Nevada Department of Corrections approve privileged communications between the two plaintiffs. The Court orders Acosta to either pay the full $405 filing fee or file a complete IFP application with all required documents, and to file a signed copy of the Complaint and his own IFP application, both by November 3, 2025.
- The Court orders that no later than November 3, 2025, Acosta must either pay the full $405 filing fee or file a complete IFP application with three required documents: a completed application with inmate signatures, a signed financial certificate, and a trust fund account statement for the previous six-month period. Additionally, Acosta must file a signed copy of the Complaint and his own IFP application.
- The Court explains that under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a pro se plaintiff cannot represent another party. Therefore, Dobbs cannot file documents on Acosta's behalf, and Acosta must sign all pleadings. The Court denies the motion for extension because Acosta did not sign the motion. The Court also denies the request for privileged communications without prejudice, noting no detailed facts about processing delays were alleged and that the next steps are not confidential.
Remedies
The Court extends the deadline for Plaintiff Antonio Acosta to file a complete IFP application and signed copy of the Complaint until November 3, 2025. Acosta must either pay the full $405 filing fee or submit a fully complete IFP application with all three required documents: completed application with inmate's two signatures on page three, completed financial certificate signed by both inmate and prison/jail official, and copy of inmate's trust fund account statement for the previous six-month period. Acosta must also file a copy of the Complaint bearing his signature attesting that the allegations are true under penalty of perjury and file his own IFP application.
Legal Principles
The court applied Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires plaintiffs to sign any pleading including the Complaint. Pro se litigants have no authority to represent anyone other than themselves and cannot file documents on behalf of other parties. Each party must file their own IFP application and sign their own Complaint.
Precedent Name
- C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States
- Cato v. United States
Cited Statute
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 11
Judge Name
Miranda M. Du
Passage Text
- As for Dobbs's request that the Court direct NDOC to approve his request to communicate with Acosta, the Court denies the motion without prejudice. Dobbs does not allege any detailed facts about when he initiated his request or how long such a request normally takes to process. He does not allege that there has been any inappropriate delay.
- It is therefore ordered that, no later than November 3, 2025, Acosta must either pay the full $405 filing fee or file a fully complete IFP application with all three required documents: (1) a completed application with the inmate's two signatures on page three, (2) a completed financial certificate that is signed by both the inmate and the prison or jail official, and (3) a copy of the inmate's trust fund account statement for the previous six-month period.
- Moreover, pro se litigants have no authority to represent anyone other than themselves. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.1 (9th Cir. 1995); see also C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987). Thus, Dobbs cannot represent Acosta or file documents on his behalf. Acosta, himself, must sign every pleading filed, including the Complaint and any motions pertaining to him.