Mathison v. Shannon et al

Filing 4

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Dismissal of Action; Denying Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis; ORDER Directing Clerk of the Court to Randomly Assign a District Judge, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 4/18/2024. Objections to F&R due within THIRTY DAYS. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL WAYNE MATHISON,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

Case No. 1:24-cv-00427-SAB
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF
ACTION; DENYING APPLICATION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

v.
ZACHARY SHANNON, et al.,

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF THE
COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN A
DISTRICT JUDGE

Defendants.

16
(ECF Nos. 1, 2)
17
OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY
DAYS

18
19

On March 29, 2024, a complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis were filed

20 naming Michael Wayne Mathison as the Plaintiff. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) Both the complaint and
21 application to proceed in forma pauperis were signed by “Raquel Hernandez POA Behalf of
22 Michael Mathison.” (ECF No. 1 at 10; ECF No. 2 at 2.) A Durable Power of Attorney form is
23 attached to the complaint which states Michael Wayne Mathison, a prisoner at Wasco State
24 Prison, appointed Raquel Hernandez, an individual that possesses a California driver’s license
25 and resides in Selma, California, as his attorney-in-fact. (ECF No. 1 at 14-16.)
26

There is no indication in the form prisoner complaint, the documents attached thereto, or

27
28

1

1 the application to proceed in forma pauperis that Ms. Hernandez is an attorney.1 It is well2 settled in the Ninth Circuit that a non-lawyer may appear in propria persona on his own behalf
3 but has no authority to appear as an attorney for anyone other than himself. Johns v. County of
4 San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States,
5 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987)). A general power of attorney does not confer power to a non6 licensed individual to represent another in court. Id. Rather, “[a] power of attorney allows
7 Person A to do on behalf of Person B matters for which an attorney's license is not required.
8 Person A may sign checks or loan documents, for example, but may not provide legal
9 representation if not licensed to practice law.” Malinay v. Nishimura, No. CIV. 13-00372 SOM,
10 2013 WL 4240460, at *1 (D. Haw. Aug. 14, 2013).
In short, an attorney-in-fact is not a licensed attorney at law that may appear on behalf of

11

12 another in this Court. See also E.D. Cal. L.R. 183(a) (requiring that any individual who is
13 representing himself without an attorney must appear personally or by courtesy appearance by
14 another attorney admitted to the Bar of this Court and may not delegate that duty to any other
15 individual, including a spouse).

Unless Ms. Hernandez is an attorney, she may not sign

16 pleadings on his behalf. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a), “[e]very pleading, written
17 motion, and other paper must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney's
18 name—or by a party personally if the party is unrepresented.” Because Ms. Hernandez is not
19 authorized to represent Mr. Mathison in this Court—including signing any pleadings or papers
20 on his behalf—the Court must recommend the complaint be dismissed without prejudice and the
21 application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied without prejudice.
However, “[a] pro se litigant must be given leave to amend his or her complaint, and

22

23 some notice of its deficiencies, unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint
24 could not be cured by amendment.” Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995).
25
1

The Court notes no individual named “Raquel Hernandez” is admitted to practice in the Eastern District of

26 California. Further, given Ms. Hernandez’s California driver’s license and California address, the Court notes no

individual named “Raquel Hernandez” is a member of the California State Bar. See Silvester v. Harris, No. 1:11-

27 CV-2137 AWI SAB, 2014 WL 7239371, *6 n.4, 5, 7, 9 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2014) (taking judicial notice of attorney

information provided on the State Bar of California's website and noting that under Federal Rule of Evidence 201,

28 “[t]he Court [may] take[ ] judicial notice of the California State Bar webpage and entry for [an attorney]”).
2

1 Because Mr. Mathison may choose to proceed in this matter pro se by signing and filing an
2 amended complaint on his own behalf or, alternatively, by representation through a licensed
3 attorney who files an amended complaint on his behalf, the Court recommends dismissal with
4 leave to amend.
5

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

6

1.

Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) be DENIED
without prejudice; and

7
2.

8

The complaint filed on March 29, 2024 (ECF No. 1) be dismissed with leave to
amend.

9

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this

10

11 action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 304. Within thirty (30)
12 days of service of these recommendations, the parties may file written objections to the findings
13 and recommendations with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to
14 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.”

The District Judge will review the

15 Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The
16 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may
17 result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014)
18 (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to randomly

19

20 assign this matter to a District Judge.
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23 Dated:

April 18, 2024
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28

3