Von Karl v. Rosenblum et al

Filing 4

OPINION AND ORDER: Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in forma pauperis 1 is DENIED and the Complaint 2 is DISMISSED, without service of process. Signed on 03/06/2017 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (rs) Modified on 3/7/2017 (rs).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION

GIA VON KARL,
No. 3:17-cv-00288-MO
Plaintiff,
OPINION AND ORDER
v.
OREGON, et al.,
Defendants.
MOSMAN, J.,
Plaintiff, through a purported “Authorized Representative” named Jayasri Bhalla El, filed
a Complaint [2] against multiple defendants based on allegations that they have violated the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act, and that they have harassed, extorted, and threatened to convict
Plaintiff for a traffic violation. Plaintiff also filed an Application to Proceed in forma pauperis
[1], which also appears to be signed by Jayasri Bhalla El.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), a complaint filed in forma pauperis must be
dismissed before service of process if it fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.
Plaintiff may not be represented in Federal Court by an “authorized representative” who is not an
attorney. Thus, Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in forma pauperis [1] is DENIED and the

1 – OPINION AND ORDER

Complaint [2] is DISMISSED, without service of process
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6th
DATED this _______ day of March, 2017.

/s/ Michael W. Mosman

____________________________
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN
Chief United States District Judge

2 – OPINION AND ORDER