# Opinion

> District Court, E.D. California · February 17, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11373879

## Case

- **Full name:** Rosendo Gonzalez Jr. v. Newrez LLC
- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** February 17, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11373879

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 ROSENDO GONZALEZ JR., No. 2:25-cv-3239 TLN AC PS
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER and
14 NEWREZ LLC, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
15 Defendant.
16
17 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was accordingly referred to the
18 undersigned for pre-trial proceedings by E.D. Cal. 302(c)(21). Plaintiff has filed a request for
19 leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), and has submitted the affidavit required by that
20 statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The motion to proceed IFP (ECF No. 2) will therefore be
21 granted.
22 I. Screening
23 A. Standards
24 The federal IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally
25 “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks
26 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A
27 claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v.
28 Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court will
1 (1) accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, unless they are clearly
2 baseless or fanciful, (2) construe those allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and
3 (3) resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; Von Saher v. Norton
4 Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 564 U.S.
5 1037 (2011).
6 The court applies the same rules of construction in determining whether the complaint
7 states a claim on which relief can be granted. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (court
8 must accept the allegations as true); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974) (court must
9 construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff). Pro se pleadings are held to a
10 less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
11 (1972). However, the court need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unreasonable
12 inferences, or unwarranted deductions of fact. Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618,
13 624 (9th Cir. 1981). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action does not suffice
14 to state a claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
15 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
16 To state a claim on which relief may be granted, the plaintiff must allege enough facts “to
17 state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has
18 facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
19 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
20 678. A pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the deficiencies in the complaint and an opportunity
21 to amend, unless the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. See Noll v.
22 Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987), superseded on other grounds by statute as stated in
23 Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir.2000)) (en banc).
24 B. The Complaint
25 Plaintiff, proceeding in pro se, brings suit individually and as Administrator of the Estate
26 of Santiago Diaz Chavera. ECF No. 1 at 2. Plaintiff “seeks equitable relief to remedy the
27 unlawful collection of $33,311.11 by Defendants during probate proceedings[.]” Id. Plaintiff is
28 alleged to be the duly appointed representative of the Chavera Estate. Id. On March 14, 2016,
1 property belonging to the estate was sold. Id. at 3. Escrow records reflect a payoff to Ditech
2 Financial LLC, even though Ditech did not properly file a creditor’s claim. Id. Ditech has since
3 been fined for corrupt practices. Id. Plaintiff seeks restitution to the Chavera Estate among other
4 relief. Id. at 4.
5 C. Analysis
6 This complaint must be dismissed because it is clear from the contents of the complaint
7 that plaintiff cannot bring this case in pro se, as all of the claims belong to the Chavera Estate. In
8 federal court, “parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel ....” 28
9 U.S.C. § 1654. However, “[i]t is well established that the privilege to represent oneself pro se
10 provided by § 1654 is personal to the litigant and does not extend to other parties or entities.”
11 Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 2008). Courts follow a “general rule
12 prohibiting pro se plaintiffs from pursuing claims on behalf of others in a representative
13 capacity.” Id. This rule applies to non-attorney executors, administrators, and personal
14 representatives seeking to represent a decedent’s estate. See id. at 666 (citing Jones v. Corr. Med.
15 Servs., 401 F.3d 950, 951-52 (8th Cir. 2005) (non-attorney administrator of decedent’s estate may
16 not proceed pro se on behalf of estate); Iannaccone v. Law, 142 F.3d 553, 559 (2nd Cir. 1998)
17 (administrator of estate may not appear pro se on behalf of estate); Pridgen v. Andresen, 113 F.3d
18 391, 393 (2nd Cir. 1997) (executrix may not appear pro se on behalf of estate)). Because the facts
19 and claims asserted in the complaint make clear that the claims belong to the Estate, and because
20 plaintiff cannot represent the Estate in pro se, this case cannot proceed in federal court.
21 II. Leave to Amend is Not Appropriate
22 Leave to amend is not appropriate in this case. Ordinarily, pro se litigants are granted
23 liberal leave to amend. “Valid reasons for denying leave to amend include undue delay, bad faith,
24 prejudice, and futility.” California Architectural Bldg. Prod. v. Franciscan Ceramics, 818 F.2d
25 1466, 1472 (9th Cir. 1988). Here, given the defects described above, the undersigned finds that
26 leave to amend would be futile and should therefore not be granted.
27 III. Pro Se Plaintiff’s Summary
28 You have been granted permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. However, the
1 | Magistrate Judge is recommending that your case be dismissed because you cannot represent the
2 || claims of an estate; only an attorney can represent the estate. You may object to this
3 || recommendation within 21 days, if you wish to do so. The District Judge will make the final
4 | decision.
5 IV. Conclusion
6 Accordingly, plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is hereby
7 || GRANTED.
8 It is further RECOMMENDED that the complaint (ECF No. 1) be DISMISSED without
9 || prejudice, and that this case be closed.
10 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
11 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty-one days
12 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections
13 || with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Id.; see also Local Rule 304(b). Such a document
14 | should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure
15 || to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s
16 | order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153,
17 | 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991).
18 || DATED: February 17, 2026 ~
19 AMhen—lChore
ALLISON CLAIRE
20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11373879. Public record. Not legal advice.