Cashman v. Warchol

Full title: DANIEL P. CASHMAN, et al., Petitioner, v. JOSEPH S. WARCHOL, II, Respondent

Court: United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Aug 17, 2006

No. CIV S-06-1396 MCE GGH P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2006)

Opinion

No. CIV S-06-1396 MCE GGH P.

August 17, 2006

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

GREGORY HOLLOWS, Magistrate Judge

On June 22, 2006, Daniel P. Cashman, a non-attorney, filed this habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ¹ purportedly on behalf of a minor identified as B.W. On July 26, 2006, the court ordered Cashman to show cause why this action should not be dismissed. On August 8, 2006, petitioner filed a response to the show cause order. For the following reasons, the court recommends that this action be dismissed.

1 The petition erroneously states that it is brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2242.

Appearances in federal court are governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1654. While a non-attorney may represent him or herself in a lawsuit, he or she has no authority to appear as an attorney for others. "[A] parent or guardian may not bring an action on behalf of a minor child without retaining a lawyer." Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 877 (9^th Cir. 1997). See also Rowland v. California Men's Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 202, 113 S.Ct. 716, 721 (1993) (unincorporated association must appear through counsel); C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9^th Cir. 1987) (dismissing complaint signed only by nonlawyer trustee); Church of the New Testament v. United States, 783 F.3d 771, 772 (9^th Cir. 1987) (church must appear in court through a licensed attorney);Iannoccone v. Law, 142 F.3d 553, 558 (2d Cir. 1998) (estate's action cannot be conducted pro se); Pridgen v. Andresen, 113 F.3d 391, 393 (2d Cir. 1997) (same).

The instant action is not proper insofar as petitioner Cashman, a non-lawyer, purports to bring this action on behalf of another party. The court has reviewed petitioner Cashman's response to the show cause order and finds no good cause to permit him to bring this action on behalf of another party. Accordingly, this action should be dismissed.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).