Gallo v. U.S.

16 Citing cases

  1. Talbert v. Cnty. Comm'n of Cabell Cnty.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11-00290 (S.D.W. Va. Jan. 3, 2012)

    Virtually every court confronted with the issue has determined that a parent does not have the right to proceed pro se on behalf of a minor child. See, e.g., Gallo v. United States, 331 F. Supp. 2d 446, 447 (E.D. Va. 2004) ("courts are nearly unanimous in holding that a parent or guardian cannot sue on behalf of a minor child without securing counsel"); Brown v. Ortho Diagnostic Sys., Inc., 868 F. Supp. 168 (E.D. Va. 1994); Collinsgru v. Palmyra Bd. of Educ., 161 F. 3d 225 (3d Cir. 1998); Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.2d 874 (9th Cir. 1997); Cheung v. Youth Orchestra Found. of Buffalo, Inc., 906 F.2d 59 (2d Cir. 1990); Meeker v. Kercher, 782 F.2d 153 (10th Cir. 1986). As the third circuit explained:

  2. Craig v. Fla. Highway Patrol

    22-cv-62024-JEM/Becerra (S.D. Fla. Jan. 25, 2023)

    “[T]he right to proceed pro se is an extension of an individual's freedom to manage their case as they choose.” Blum v. Perry, No. CV419-291, 2020 WL 1978404, at *2 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 13, 2020), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. JAY A. BLUM; & A.B. (a minor child), Plaintiffs, v. SALLY HORTAN PERRY, et al., Defendants, No. 4:19-CV-291, 2020 WL 1974403 (S.D. Ga. Apr. 24, 2020) (citing Gallo v. United States, 311 F.Supp.2d 446, 448-49 (E.D. Va. 2004)). However, “[a]lthough Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c) ‘permits authorized representatives, including parents, to sue on behalf of minors, [it] does not confer any right upon such representatives to serve as legal counsel.” Hill v. Dempsey, No. 4:16CV279-RH/CAS, 2016 WL 3369263, at *1 (N.D. Fla. May 16, 2016), report and recommendation adopted, No. 4:16CV279-RH/CAS, 2016 WL 3360502 (N.D. Fla. June 16, 2016) (quoting Devine v. Indian River Cnty. Sch. Bd., 121 F.3d 576, 581 (11th Cir. 1997), overruled in part on other grounds by Winkelman ex rel. Winkelman v. Parma City Sch. Dist., 550 U.S. 516, 535 (2007)). In the case of minors, it is “presumed [that they] lack the capacity to intelligently make such choices” so as to proceed pro se. Blum v. Perry, 2020 WL 1978404, at *2 (citing Gallo, 311 F.Supp.2d at 49).

  3. Horton v. Dollar Tree

    Civil Action 2:22cv86 (EWH) (E.D. Va. Oct. 21, 2022)

    Courts recognize that the legal competence of a “layman . . . is clearly too limited to allow him to risk the rights of others.” Myers, 418 F.3d at 400 (citation omitted); see Gallo v. United States, 331 F.Supp.2d 446, 447 (E.D. Va. 2004) (noting that “[i]t is generally not in the interest of a child to be represented by a non-attorney, who will likely be unable to adequately protect her rights and vigorously prosecute litigation on her behalf”).

  4. Bass v. Carr

    Civil Action 2:21cv448 (E.D. Va. Dec. 17, 2021)

    To the extent that Ms. Bass only intends to assert claims in this action on behalf of O.W., the Court notes that Ms. Bass, who does not appear to be a licensed attorney, cannot do so on a pro se basis. See Gallo v. United States, 331 F.Supp.2d 446, 447 (E.D. Va. 2004) (stating that “[a]lthough 28 U.S.C. § 1654 gives litigants the right to bring civil claims pro se, courts are nearly unanimous in holding that a parent or guardian cannot sue on behalf of a child without securing counsel”); Myers v. Loudoun Cty. Pub. Sch., 418 F.3d 395, 400-01 (4th Cir. 2005) (recognizing that the legal competence of a “layman . . . is clearly too limited to allow him to risk the rights of others, ” and holding that “non-attorney parents generally may not litigate the claims of their minor children in federal court”).

  5. Grant v. S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs.

    C/A: 2:18-1804-RMG-BM (D.S.C. Feb. 14, 2019)   Cited 3 times

    Therefore, it is recommended that any claims Plaintiffs are attempting to assert on behalf of the minor children be dismissed. See, e.g., Gallo v. United States, 331 F.Supp.2d 446, 447 (E.D.Va. 2004); Brown v. Ortho Diagnostic Systems, Inc., 868 F. Supp. 168, 170-71 (E.D. Va. 1994). Secondly, the Complaint filed in this case is subject to summary dismissal without service of process because it fails to state a claim which this Court may consider under its federal question jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or its diversity jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

  6. Beasley v. Bojangles' Rests., Inc.

    1:17CV255 (M.D.N.C. Sep. 20, 2018)   Cited 3 times

    (Pl.'s Resp. in Opp'n at 3.) In support of this position, they cite Fields v. Norfolk & Southern Railway Co., 924 F. Supp. 2d 702, 710 (S.D.W. Va. 2012), in which the court applied West Virginia state law in its exercise of discretion where the plaintiff's counsel initiated service immediately after realizing the deadline had passed and effected service seven days after the deadline to do so, and Gallo v. United States, 331 F. Supp. 2d 446, 448 (E.D. Va. 2004), in which the court found that a mother could not represent her minor child pro se, a rule "aimed at protecting the rights of children", but that "[i]t would be a perverse result to rest dismissal of [the minor's] claim on this ground, thereby preventing her from ever litigating her claim, as she is clearly the person the rule means to protect." For obvious reasons, these cases are distinguishable from the instant action.

  7. Irwin Jacobowitz on Behalf of v. Ymca Greater Providence Bayside Ymca Branch

    C.A. No. 15-345 S (D.R.I. Mar. 30, 2016)   Cited 1 times

    "[I]t is well established that a non-lawyer parent . . . cannot pursue a pro se lawsuit in Federal Court on behalf of his or her child." Charette v. Martinez, C.A. No. 09- 576S, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116173, at *3 (D.R.I. Oct. 6, 2010) (citing Tindall v. Poultney High Sch. Dist., 414 F.3d 281, 284 (2nd Cir. 2005); Gallo v. United States, 331 F. Supp. 2d 446, 447 (E.D. Va. 2004)); see also Bleicken v. Perkins, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 33878, *5-6 (1st Cir. Dec. 29, 1993) ("[T]his circuit 'does not allow non-lawyers to represent litigants other than themselves.'" (quoting Amman v. Stow Sch. Sys., 982 F.2d 644, 648 (1st Cir. 1992)).

  8. Yaun v. Donegal Ins. Grp.

    C/A No.: 1:11-1592-TLW-SVH (D.S.C. May. 7, 2012)

    Although 28 U.S.C. § 1654 permits a litigant to "conduct their own cases personally," it does not extend to litigating for others, and "courts are nearly unanimous in holding that a parent or guardian cannot sue on behalf of a child without securing counsel." Gallo v. United States, 331 F.Supp.2d 446, 447 (E.D.Va. Aug. 23, 2004) (collecting cases). Clemons is ordered to do at least one of the following by June 6, 2012: (1) authorize his attorney to dismiss this case; (2) contact his existing counsel and agree to communicate and cooperate with him in the litigation of this case; or (3) obtain new counsel who must enter a notice of appearance. Also by June 6, 2012, Clemons must file, or authorize counsel to file on his behalf, a status report indicating that he has complied with this order and specifying whether he plans to voluntarily dismiss this case, communicate and cooperate with his existing counsel, or direct new counsel to file a motion of substitution. If Clemons fails to comply with this order, the undersigned plans to recommend dismissal of all claims brought by Clemons, including those claims brought on behalf of his minor child.

  9. Bardes v. Magera

    C.A. No.: 2:08-CV-487-PMD-RSC (D.S.C. Sep. 30, 2009)   Cited 4 times

    Although 28 U.S.C. § 1654 gives litigants the right to bring civil claims pro se, courts are nearly unanimous in holding that a parent or guardian cannot sue on behalf of a child without securing counsel." Gallo v. United States, 331 F. Supp. 2d 446, 447 (E.D. Va. 2004). Since Plaintiff, appearing pro se, is attempting to represent his children, the court dismisses any claims brought on their behalf, without prejudice, and dismisses them from this suit. III. Claims for Damages Against the State of South Carolina andthe State Defendants in their Official Capacities

  10. Shaw v. Lynchburg Dept. of Social Services

    CIVIL No. 6:08CV00022 (W.D. Va. Jan. 29, 2009)   Cited 2 times

    It is well-settled that, absent unique circumstances, a parent may not litigate a claim pro se on behalf of her children. Myers v. Loudon County Public Schools, 418 F.3d 395, 401 (4th Cir. 2005) ("non-attorney parents generally may not litigate the claims of their minor children in federal court."); see also Gallo v. United States, 331 F. Supp. 2d 446, 447 (E.D. Va. 2004) (noting that "courts are nearly unanimous in holding that a parent or guardian cannot sue on behalf of a child without securing counsel."). "The right to litigate for oneself . . . does not create a coordinate right to litigate for others."