Johnson v. Joel Carter Olson

Background

Paul E. Johnson filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on his own behalf, as personal representative of the Estate of Marilyn Ione Van Asch, and purportedly on behalf of two other individuals — Marcie Henning and Nada Van Asch — whom he described as "vulnerable-adult heirs" of the estate. The defendants include a state court judge (sued in individual and alleged non-judicial capacities), an attorney, several private individuals and companies, Minneapolis Police Department officers, Hennepin County Sheriff's Deputies, and the City of Minneapolis and Hennepin County, among others.

At the outset, Johnson applied to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), meaning he asked the court to waive the filing fee because he cannot afford it.

The Two Core Problems

The court identified two interrelated procedural obstacles.

Problem 1 — IFP eligibility. While Johnson personally qualified financially for IFP status, an estate is not a "natural person" and cannot qualify for IFP status under controlling Supreme Court precedent. Additionally, when multiple plaintiffs seek IFP status, each must independently qualify. The two other individual plaintiffs, Henning and Nada Van Asch, had not filed their own IFP applications. As a result, the filing fee of $405.00 remained due.

Problem 2 — Unauthorized practice of law. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1654, only parties themselves or licensed attorneys may conduct proceedings in federal court. Johnson is not a lawyer. A non-attorney personal representative of an estate may not represent the estate pro se (without a lawyer) in federal court when there are other beneficiaries or creditors, under Eighth Circuit authority. Nor may Johnson represent the two individual co-plaintiffs.

The Court's August 3 Order and Johnson's Response

On August 3, 2026, the court gave Johnson two options with a deadline of August 24, 2026:

1. Amend the complaint to assert only his own claims, removing the estate and the two other individuals as plaintiffs — in which case no filing fee would be due and IFP status would be granted; or 2. Retain all plaintiffs — but only if a licensed attorney entered an appearance and the $405.00 filing fee was paid.

On August 25, 2026 — one day after the deadline — Johnson filed a motion seeking three things: (a) appointment of counsel for Henning and Nada Van Asch under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c); (b) appointment of counsel for himself and the estate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); and (c) alternatively, an additional 45 days to find a willing attorney.

Analysis of Johnson's Motion

Rule 17(c) — Guardian Ad Litem for Alleged Incompetent Parties

Rule 17(c)(2) requires a court to appoint a guardian ad litem (a person appointed by a court to act on behalf of someone unable to represent themselves) to protect an unrepresented minor or legally incompetent person in litigation. The court found that Johnson had not presented any evidence — or even alleged — that Henning or Nada Van Asch are legally incompetent. Moreover, even if they were, appointment of a guardian ad litem would not solve the problem: that role is legally distinct from that of an attorney, and the two individuals could only proceed if represented by a licensed attorney (or themselves). A guardian ad litem would also do nothing to address the estate's separate need for attorney representation.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) — Request for Appointed Counsel for the Estate

Section 1915(e)(1) provides that a court "may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel." The court explained two reasons this provision does not help Johnson. First, the statute allows a court only to request — not to appoint — an attorney. Second, the term "person" in this context means a natural person, not an artificial legal entity like an estate. Citing collected authority, the court held that § 1915(e)(1) does not extend to estates.

Extension of Time

Johnson's fallback request — 45 more days to find a lawyer — was also denied. The court noted that even if Johnson found an attorney, the $405.00 filing fee would still need to be paid, and no payment had been made by the August 24 deadline. Johnson had been warned that failure to comply could result in dismissal without prejudice.

Disposition

Because Johnson neither paid the filing fee nor amended the complaint to remove the parties whose presence made the fee necessary, Chief Judge Eric C. Tostrud dismissed the entire action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) (dismissal for failure to prosecute). The court also:

- Denied Johnson's IFP application (ECF No. 2). - Denied Johnson's motion for court-appointed counsel for vulnerable adults and for an extension of time (ECF No. 5).

The court expressly noted that a dismissal without prejudice does not bar Johnson from refiling in federal court once he has secured a licensed attorney willing to represent the estate and the other individuals.