Jacob v. United States
- 3:25-cv-07161
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Jacob v. United States, the court ordered supplemental filings from Dr. Karen Jacob and her minor children.
Dr. Karen Jacob, M.J., and E.J. are affected. M.J. and E.J. must provide separate financial information and seek appointment of a guardian ad litem; Dr. Jacob’s pending fee-waiver application may be denied if the required filings are not made.
What happened
In Jacob v. United States, Dr. Karen Jacob, M.J., and E.J. sued the United States over alleged misconduct by Customs and Border Patrol officers at San Francisco International Airport. Dr. Jacob asked to proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court said Dr. Jacob’s financial information appeared sufficient, but all plaintiffs must qualify before the fee can be waived. It ordered M.J. and E.J. to submit separate financial applications and required the plaintiffs to request appointment of a guardian to represent the minors in the case. Future filings must identify the minors only by their initials.
By September 23, 2025, the plaintiffs had to submit the minors’ financial applications and guardian-appointment requests. The court warned that failure to comply could lead to denial of the pending fee-waiver application and/or dismissal of M.J. and E.J. from the lawsuit; the court did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Jacob v. United States · No. 3:25-cv-07161
- Sept. 2, 2025
Background
Dr. Karen Jacob, M.J., and E.J. sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They allege that Customs and Border Patrol officers violated their constitutional rights and committed tortious conduct when they arrived at San Francisco International Airport to seek asylum. Dr. Jacob, who is representing herself, applied to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the filing fee.
Fee-waiver application
The court stated that Dr. Jacob’s financial information would be sufficient if she were the only plaintiff. But when several plaintiffs seek to proceed without paying the filing fee, each plaintiff must qualify. Because the application disclosed only Dr. Jacob’s financial resources, the court ordered M.J. and E.J. to file separate applications listing their own financial resources by September 23, 2025. The court said that failing to do so may result in denial of the pending application.
Requirements for the minor plaintiffs
The court stated that federal rules generally require minors to be identified by initials in court filings. It directed the plaintiffs to use only M.J. and E.J. in future filings.
The court also explained that minors must have a representative, such as a guardian ad litem, to conduct litigation for them. The plaintiffs had not filed requests to appoint a guardian ad litem for M.J. and E.J. The court ordered them to file those requests by September 23, 2025, proposing Dr. Jacob or another suitable adult. It warned that failure to do so may lead to a recommendation that M.J. and E.J. be dismissed from the case without prejudice.
Ruling
The court ordered the supplemental financial applications and guardian-appointment requests by September 23, 2025. It did not rule on the merits of the claims against the United States, and it did not yet deny the pending fee-waiver application or dismiss the minor plaintiffs. The opinion’s signature does not clearly identify a judge by name, so this summary refers to the court.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.