Petersen v. Riverview Police Department

Full title: GEORGE PETERSEN, Plaintiff(s), v. RIVERVIEW POLICE DEPARTMENT, et. al.…

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division — Flint

Date published: Oct 31, 2005

Case No.: 04-CV-60196-AA (E.D. Mich. Oct. 31, 2005)

Opinion

Case No.: 04-CV-60196-AA.

October 31, 2005

ORDER DENYING IN-PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED/SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT AND DISMISSING AS MOOT MOTION TO COMPEL SERVICE

WALLACE CAPEL JR., Magistrate Judge

This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff's Motion For Leave To File An Amended/Supplemental Complaint filed on October 21, 2005, and Plaintiff's Motion To Compel Service By The United States Marshal, also filed on October 21, 2005.

Having reviewed the proposed amended complaint, it appears that the pro se Plaintiff, George Petersen, is attempting to represent Audrey L. Farino as a plaintiff in this action. The Plaintiff in this matter has no standing to represent another individual in a civil matter. See Mercer v. Fayette Circuit Court, 52 F.3d 325 (6^th. Cir. (Ky.) 1995) (unpublished). A pro se plaintiff is limited to asserting alleged violations of his or her own constitutional rights and lacks standing to assert the constitutional rights of others. Newsome v. Norris, 888 F.2d 371, 381 (6^th. Cir. 1989). The pro se Plaintiff is limited to representing himself only. Ms. Farino, should she so desire, would be required to file her own civil action. The motion therefore to amend complaint is hereby DENIED IN-PART.

The Plaintiff shall be granted a period of ten days from receipt of this order to re-submit a proposed amended complaint on his behalf only. Further, the Plaintiff shall re-draft the complaint by eliminating material that is not pertinent to his allegations against the Defendant. The Plaintiff' complaint should indicate in a short, concise, and clear manner what his cause of action is against the Defendant. Upon receipt of the revised proposed amended complaint, the undersigned will then make a determination as to whether the proposed amended complaint should be accepted for filing.

The Plaintiff has also filed a Motion To Compel Service By The United States Marshal. Since the Plaintiff has already been permitted to proceed in forma pauperis, based upon an order entered on September 15, 2004, the motion to compel service is hereby DISMISSED AS MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

The parties are hereby informed that any objection to this order must be filed with the district court within ten days after service, pursuant to Rule 72(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.