Summary
preventing pro se non-attorney inmate from filing pleadings on behalf of other inmates
Summary of this case from Morris v. FloresOpinion
No. 14-09-00337-CV
Opinion filed June 24, 2010.
On Appeal from the 12th District Court Walker County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 23,962.
Panel consists of Chief Justice HEDGES and Justices YATES and BOYCE.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Gordon R. Simmonds, an inmate who is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, appeals from the trial court's no-evidence summary judgment. Appellant filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that appellees, who are prison officials, violated his constitutional rights by ordering him to move his property during unit searches, or "shake-downs." We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
The record reflects that the underlying suit was filed by plaintiffs Gordon R. Simmonds, Freddie L. McKenzie, Donald J. Thompson, Donald F. Atkinson, William T. Carey, Gene Guinn, and Charles E. Madden. Each of these pro se inmates signed the petition, making them parties to the suit. Appellees' Motion for No-Evidence Summary Judgment addressed only the claims made by appellant Gordon R. Simmonds. See Johnson v. Brewer Pritchard, P.C., 73 S.W.3d 193, 204 (Tex. 2002) (holding that trial court can only grant summary judgment on grounds expressly presented in motion). The record contains no order dismissing or otherwise disposing of the claims of these other plaintiffs. Accordingly, the judgment in this case is not final. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 205-06 (Tex. 2001) (recognizing that appellate court may be required to review record to determine whether all pending claims and parties have been disposed of, even though order states that it is final).
On December 12, 2007, an amended petition was filed naming the following as plaintiffs: Gordon R. Simmonds, Freddie L. McKenzie, Donald F. Atkinson, William T. Carey, Gene Guinn, Charles E. Madden, James W. Walker, Ronald Foreman, Billy J. Everett, Kenneth R. Green, Arther Phillips, Allen L. Meeks, Robert Blakney, Wayland Tolbert, Kennith W. Lorentz, Charles Woolwine, David L. Wisdom, Michael D. Schipull, Richard L. Swain, and David Clark. The petition states that it intended to drop Donald J. Thompson from the suit. The amended petition is signed only by Gordon R. Simmonds, however. Appellant also filed an amended notice of appeal naming numerous other inmates as appellants. Simmonds, a pro se non-attorney, may not file pleadings on behalf of other parties. Each party may prosecute or defend his or her own rights. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 7 ("Any party to a suit may appear and prosecute or defend his rights therein, either in person or by an attorney of the court."). Because appellant is not an attorney, however, he may not represent others. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 81.102(a) (Vernon 2005) (defining unauthorized practice of law); Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 38.123 (Vernon 2003) (explaining that unauthorized practice of law is a Class A misdemeanor); Crain v. The Unauthorized Practice of Law Comm. of the Sup. Ct. of Tex., 11 S.W.3d 328, 332-34 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st] 1999, pet. denied) (explaining that a person who is not a licensed attorney may not represent other persons in legal matters); see also Shafer v. Frost Nat'l Bank, No. 14-06-00673-CV, 2008 WL 2130418 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th] May 22, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op.) (concluding that a pro se plaintiff unlicensed to practice law may not represent or defend the rights of other pro se plaintiffs). Thus, the only appellant before this court is Gordon R. Simmonds.
Notification was transmitted to the parties of the court's intention to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction unless any party demonstrated that this court has jurisdiction over the appeal. Appellant responded with a request that we abate the appeal so that a final judgment may be entered. Appellees did not respond to this court's notice or to appellant's motion. We deny appellant's request. See Tex. R. App. P. 27.2 (giving the appellate court discretion whether to permit abatement when the order being appealed is not final). Dismissal of this appeal is without prejudice to filing a new appeal after a final judgment has been signed.
Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.