Cooley v. City of Vallejo
Filing
7
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/17/2014 GRANTING 6 Motion for Reconsideration; DENYING the plaintiff's request that Frederick Marc Cooley be allowed to continue to provide legal assistance during the course of this litigati on and that the court order service of the 1 Complaint; DIRECTING the Clerk of Court to issue process and to send the plaintiff an instruction sheet for service of process by the U.S. Marshal, three USM-285 forms, one summons form and an endorsed c opy of the 5 First Amended Complaint; ORDERING the plaintiff to submit to the U.S. Marshal in person or by mail within thirty (30) days, properly completed USM-285 forms, a properly completed summons form and the number of copies of the 5 First A mended Complaint required by the U.S. Marshal; ORDERING the plaintiff to file a declaration stating the date which the required documents were submitted to the U.S. Marshal within ten (10) days of said submission; DIRECTING the U.S. Marshal to serve process on the defendants without prepayment of costs within thirty (30) days of reception of the necessary materials from the plaintiff. (cc: U.S. Marshal) (Michel, G)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
FREDERICK MARCELES COOLEY,
12
13
14
15
No. 2:14-cv-0240 MCE DAD PS
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
CITY OF VALLEJO, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
18
19
Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was, therefore, referred to the
undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
In an order dated April 2, 2014, the undersigned granted plaintiff‟s application to proceed
20
in forma pauperis, dismissed plaintiff‟s complaint filed January 27, 2014, and granted plaintiff
21
leave to file an amended complaint within twenty-eight days. (Dkt. No. 4.) That order also
22
advised plaintiff that his request for authorization for “Frederick Marc Cooley” to act as
23
plaintiff‟s “legal assistant in this civil action” could not be granted.
24
On April 7, 2014, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint, (Dkt. No. 5), and a motion for
25
reconsideration of the court‟s April 2, 2014 order. (Dkt. No. 6.) Plaintiff‟s motion for
26
reconsideration asks the court to reconsider “its prior order dismissing [p]laintiff‟s complaint and
27
issue a new order recognizing [p]laintiff and his „Legal Assistant‟ Frederick Marc Cooley are
28
engaging in „expressive association‟ protected by [the] First Amendment,” and finding that
1
1
Frederick Marc Cooley “can continue to provide legal assistance to [p]laintiff during the course
2
of this litigation.” (Id. at 5.) Attached to plaintiff‟s motion for reconsideration is a declaration
3
from Frederick Marc Cooley, (“Marc Cooley”), stating that he is plaintiff‟s father and that he
4
“currently provide[s] legal assistance to” five other identified plaintiffs who have brought similar
5
actions against the City of Vallejo and officers of the Vallejo Police Department.1 (Id. at 7-11.)
6
According to Mr. Marc Cooley, this legal assistance “consists of but is not limited to researching
7
case law, rules of court etc. . . . preparing and filing court documents, preparing legal
8
correspondence, assisting in the discovery process . . . assisting during conferences between
9
parties and the court . . . and assisting during any trial or hearing set by the court.” (Id. at 8.)
In refusing to explicitly authorize and recognize Marc Cooley as plaintiff‟s legal assistant,
10
11
the court did not prohibit plaintiff from receiving informal assistance from his father in
12
prosecuting this action. Indeed, some of the assistance indicated by Marc Cooley may be
13
permissible, although the court is not ruling on the propriety or value of such informal assistance.
14
However, as previously stated, the right to represent oneself pro se is personal to the
15
plaintiff and does not extend to other parties. Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664
16
(9th Cir. 2008); see also Russell v. United States, 308 F.2d 78, 79 (9th Cir. 1962) (“A litigant
17
appearing in propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other than himself.”).
18
Moreover, a non-attorney “has no authority to appear as an attorney for others than himself.”
19
C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. U.S., 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987). Individuals who are
20
representing themselves in this court may not delegate the litigation of their claims to any other
21
individual. Local Rule 183(a).
22
23
Accordingly, if plaintiff wishes to prosecute this action it must be plaintiff who represents
himself before this court, unless licensed counsel substitutes in on his behalf. In this regard, all
24
1
25
26
27
28
While there is no indication before the court that plaintiff Frederick Marceles Cooley is a
minor, Frederick Marceles Cooley and his father Frederick Marc Cooley are advised that “a
parent or guardian cannot bring an action on behalf of a minor child without retaining a lawyer.”
Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997). Moreover, where the plaintiff
is a minor, the action cannot proceed without the appointment of a guardian ad litem. See FED. R.
CIV. PRO. 17(c); see also Watson v. County of Santa Clara, 468 F. Supp.2d 1150, 1155 (N.D. Cal.
2007); E.D. Cal. Local Rule 202.
2
1
pleadings and non-evidentiary documents filed with the court must be signed by plaintiff himself.
2
Moreover, plaintiff must appear at all noticed hearings and neither a non-attorney nor an attorney
3
who has not made a formal appearance in this action will be allowed to speak on plaintiff‟s
4
behalf. Finally, the court cannot and will not expressly authorize Marc Cooley, or any other non-
5
attorney, to act as plaintiff‟s legal assistant.
With respect to plaintiff‟s request that the court reconsider its prior order dismissing
6
7
plaintiff‟s complaint, as noted above, plaintiff has now filed an amended complaint. The
8
amended complaint has superseded the original complaint and the court‟s review of the amended
9
complaint finds that it is appropriate for service.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the court will grant plaintiff‟s motion for
10
11
reconsideration. However, having reconsidered the matter, the court reaffirms its prior order
12
declining to expressly authorize Marc Cooley to act as plaintiff‟s legal assistant and dismissing
13
plaintiff‟s original complaint with leave to amend.
14
CONCLUSION
15
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
16
1. Plaintiff‟s April 7, 2014 motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 6) is granted.
17
2. Plaintiff‟s request that the court find that Frederick Marc Cooley can continue
18
to provide legal assistance to the plaintiff during the course of this litigation and that the court
19
order service of the original complaint is denied for the reasons stated above.
20
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to issue process and to send plaintiff an
21
instruction sheet for service of process by the United States Marshal, three USM-285 forms, one
22
summons form, and an endorsed copy of plaintiff‟s amended complaint filed April 7, 2014. (Dkt.
23
No. 5).
24
4. Within thirty (30) days after this order is served, plaintiff shall submit to the
25
United States Marshal a properly completed USM-285 form, a properly completed summons
26
form, and the number of copies of the endorsed complaint and of this order required by the
27
United States Marshal; the required documents shall be submitted directly to the United States
28
Marshal either by personal delivery or by mail to: United States Marshals Service, 501 I Street,
3
1
2
Suite 5600, Sacramento, CA 95814 (tel. 916-930-2030).
5. Within ten (10) days after submitting the required materials to the United States
3
Marshals Service, plaintiff shall file with this court a declaration stating the date on which he
4
submitted the required documents to the United States Marshal. Failure to file the declaration in a
5
timely manner may result in an order imposing appropriate sanctions.
6
7
8
9
10
6. Within thirty (30) days after receiving the necessary materials from plaintiff,
the United States Marshal is directed to serve process on defendants without prepayment of costs.
7. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the United
States Marshal.
Dated: April 17, 2014
11
12
13
DAD:6
Ddad1\orders.pro se\cooley0240.recon.den.serve.ord.docx
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?