Menaldi v. Exon Mobil, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
ARTHUR T. MENALDI, 	) 	CASE NO.: 4:25-cv-01669
)
Plaintiff, 	) 	JUDGE BRIDGET MEEHAN BRENNAN
)
v. 	)
)
EXXON MOBIL, et al., 	) 	OPINION AND ORDER
)
Defendants. 	)
Pro se Plaintiff Arthur T. Menaldi filed a civil complaint against two out-of-state
corporations, Exxon Mobil and Shopoff Realty (collectively “Defendants”). (Doc. 1.) The
Complaint is accompanied by an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 2.) For the
reasons stated herein, that application is DENIED, and this action is DISMISSED.
On August 11, 2025, Plaintiff filed his pro se Complaint. (Doc. 1.) The Complaint does
not set forth cogent specific allegations of wrongdoing as to either Defendant. (See id.; Doc. 1-
2.) Plaintiff brings the action “individually” and “as personal representative of the estate of [his
brother] Dom Menaldi.” (Doc. 1-2 at 9.) 1 He contends Dom Menaldi was “exposed to a toxic
release event” in Huntington Beach, California, “leading to thyroid dysfunction, kidney
impairment, and eventual death.” (Id.) Plaintiff lists causes of action for wrongful death,
negligence/negligence per se, strict liability, toxic tort, and a survival action. (Id. at 9-10.) He
seeks $500,000,000 in damages. (Id. at 10.)
Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee for this action. Instead, he requests to proceed in forma
pauperis. (Doc. 2.)
1 For ease and consistency, record citations are to the electronically stamped CM/ECF document
and PageID# rather than any internal pagination.
Case: 4:25-cv-01669-BMB Doc #: 4 Filed: 11/20/25 1 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>

Proceeding in forma pauperis in federal court is a privilege, not a right, and permission to
do so is committed to the sound discretion of the Court. Wilson v. Yaklich, 148 F.3d 596, 603
(6th Cir. 1998); Weaver v. Toombs, 948 F.2d 1004, 1008 (6th Cir. 1991). An indigent litigant
seeking to proceed in forma pauperis must file an affidavit with a statement of assets and
liabilities that demonstrates his or her financial inability to pay fees. See 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(1).
Despite clear instructions on the Court’s in forma pauperis application that an applicant
should “not leave any blanks,” Plaintiff left large sections of his application completely blank,
including every question about monthly expenses. (See Doc. 2 at 17-21.) Thus, he represents
having no monthly expenses of any kind. In addition, other than indicating he received an
average monthly income of $800 over the past 12 months, he simply wrote “0” or “N/A” in
response to every other question regarding his financial circumstances (other than the questions
he left blank). (Id.) The Court does not find that Plaintiff has provided valid or sufficient
information to justify allowing him to proceed in forma pauperis in this case.
Further, Plaintiff has been apprised in a similar case in this district that he cannot proceed
pro se or in forma pauperis as a representative of the estate of another. See Menaldi for Estate of
Menaldi v. Norfolk Southern Railroad Co., No. 4:25-cv-595, 2025 WL 987737, at *1 (N.D. Ohio
Apr. 2, 2025) (denying Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing
Plaintiff’s toxic tort case on behalf of the estate of another brother, Thomas Menaldi). As the
court in Menaldi for Estate of Menaldi explained, because Plaintiff is not a licensed attorney, he
cannot represent an estate as a pro se litigant, and an estate cannot proceed in forma pauperis in
federal court. See id. (citing Zanecki v. Health All. Plan of Detroit, 576 F. App’x 594, 595 (6th
Cir. 2014) (noting a non-lawyer may not represent an estate pro se) and Rowland v. Cal. Men’s
Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 196 (1993) (clarifying the word “person” as used in § 1915(e) only
Case: 4:25-cv-01669-BMB Doc #: 4 Filed: 11/20/25 2 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>

applies to natural persons, not estates)).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is DENIED,
and this action is DISMISSED. The Court hereby certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3),
that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 	November 20, 2025 	_________________________________
BRIDGET MEEHAN BRENNAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 4:25-cv-01669-BMB Doc #: 4 Filed: 11/20/25 3 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>