PRATER v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMP., 443 F.Supp.3d 586

Pro se plaintiff Charmaine Prater filed an IFP civil action alleging injuries from a March 1, 2018 car accident against insurers, rental-car companies, and other private parties; she named herself, a deceased “Jane Doe,” and a minor “Jane Doe.”
Complaint is short and unclear; plaintiff seeks monetary damages and references constitutional principles.
Court granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and the Rule 12(b)(6) plausibility standard.
Court held a non‑attorney pro se litigant cannot represent other individuals, and dismissed the co‑plaintiffs (the Jane Does) without prejudice.
Court found no plausible federal claim: § 1983 inapplicable because defendants are private actors and no other federal basis was alleged; state law claims remain but the court declined supplemental jurisdiction because federal claims were dismissed.
Court concluded diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 was not adequately alleged (complete diversity and amount in controversy not shown) and dismissed Prater’s claims without prejudice, permitting amendment or refiling in state court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a pro se plaintiff may represent other plaintiffs	Prater filed on behalf of herself and two Jane Does	Non‑attorney cannot represent others; court must enforce rule	Non‑attorney representation of others is prohibited; co‑plaintiffs dismissed without prejudice
Whether the complaint states a § 1983 claim	Complaint alludes to constitutional principles (suggesting § 1983)	Defendants are private actors, not state actors	§ 1983 claim not plausible because no state‑action allegation
Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims	Prater implied state‑law causes arising from the accident	No federal claims remain to support supplemental jurisdiction	Court declines supplemental jurisdiction and dismisses state claims without prejudice
Whether diversity jurisdiction exists under § 1332	Plaintiff listed addresses and alleged defendants are from various states	Plaintiff failed to allege complete diversity or amount in controversy	Diversity not adequately alleged; federal jurisdiction not established

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard requires plausible factual allegations)
Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236 (3d Cir. 1999) (§ 1915 screening uses Rule 12(b)(6) standard)
Higgs v. Attorney Gen., 655 F.3d 333 (3d Cir. 2011) (pro se pleadings are liberally construed)
Osei‑Afriyie ex rel. Osei‑Afriyie v. Med. Coll. of Pa., 937 F.2d 876 (3d Cir. 1991) (non‑attorney may not represent others in federal court)
Collinsgru v. Palmyra Bd. of Educ., 161 F.3d 225 (3d Cir. 1998) (same rule barring non‑lawyer representation of others)
Winkelman ex rel. Winkelman v. Parma City Sch. Dist., 550 U.S. 516 (2007) (discussing rights of parents and representation issues)
West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988) (§ 1983 requires action under color of state law)
Leshko v. Servis, 423 F.3d 337 (3d Cir. 2005) (state‑action nexus test)
Lincoln Ben. Life Co. v. AEI Life, LLC, 800 F.3d 99 (3d Cir. 2015) (burden of establishing diversity jurisdiction)
Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81 (2005) (complete diversity requirement under § 1332)
Zambelli Fireworks Mfg. Co. v. Wood, 592 F.3d 412 (3d Cir. 2010) (citizenship rules for unincorporated associations)
Washington v. Hovensa LLC, 652 F.3d 340 (3d Cir. 2011) (domicile and citizenship for individuals)
DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332 (2006) (burden of establishing federal jurisdiction)