Scott v. Young

Filing 4

ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 4/11/18 ORDERING that all pleading, discovery, and motion practice in this action are stayed pending resolution of these findings and recommendations. RECOM MENDING that the action be dismissed without leave to amend. Motion to proceed in forma pauperis 2 be denied as moot. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case. F&R referred to District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections to F&R due within fourteen (14) days. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ALARIC DONYA SCOTT, JR.,

12

No. 2:18-cv-00486-KJM-CKD PS

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

RUTH YOUNG,

15

ORDER AND
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Defendant.

16
17
18

Plaintiff Alaric Donya Scott, Jr., who proceeds in this action without counsel,1 has

19

requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 2.)

20

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the court is directed to dismiss the case at any time if it determines

21

that the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a

22

claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant.
For the reasons discussed below, the court concludes that defendant Ruth Young is subject

23
24

to absolute immunity in this matter. Accordingly, the court recommends that the action be

25

dismissed without leave to amend and that plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis in

26

this court be denied as moot.

27
28

1

This case proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1).
1

1

The United States Supreme Court has held that “in initiating a prosecution and in

2

presenting the State’s case, the prosecutor is immune from civil suit for damages under § 1983.”

3

Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431 (1976). Such absolute immunity applies “even if it leaves

4

the genuinely wronged defendant without civil redress against a prosecutor whose malicious and

5

dishonest action deprives him of liberty.” Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir.

6

1986).

7

Here, plaintiff has named defendant Ruth Young in her official capacity as a prosecutor

8

for the Sacramento County District Attorney’s Office. In the complaint, plaintiff claims that

9

certain California statutes violate the United States Constitution. (See ECF No. 1 at 8 (“Plaintiff

10

seeks to establish that the recognition and incorporation of the 1st, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 14th

11

Amendment equal protection clause, renders the State’s statutes unconstitutional.”).) However,

12

plaintiff has only named Ruth Young as a defendant, related to her prosecution of plaintiff under

13

the purportedly unconstitutional California statutes (id. at 9)—activities for which defendant is

14

absolutely immune from civil suit.2 See Imbler, 424 U.S. at 431.

15

Additionally, the court notes that plaintiff indicates that he is represented in this matter by

16

A.J. Scott, who appears to be a non-attorney. (See ECF No. 1 at 7, 15.) Although “parties may

17

plead and conduct their own cases personally,” see 28 U.S.C. § 1654, “the right to proceed pro se

18

in civil cases is a personal right” and a person appearing pro se has no authority to represent

19

others. C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Hou

20

1778 Hawaiians v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 2016 WL 335851, at *3 (D. Haw. Jan. 27,

21

2016); Johns v. Cty. of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997) (“While a non-attorney may

22

appear pro se on his own behalf, he has no authority to appear as an attorney for others than

23
24
25
26
27
28

2

To the extent that plaintiff seeks a declaration that the California statutes are unconstitutional
(see ECF No. 1), there is no basis for such a ruling in this matter because the complaint does not
state an actual controversy between plaintiff and defendant. See 28. U.S.C. § 2201(a) (“In a case
of actual controversy within its jurisdiction. . . any court of the United States, upon the filing of
an appropriate pleading, may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party
seeking such declaration. . .”); Taylor v. U.S. Bd. of Parole, 194 F.2d 882, 883 (D.C. Cir. 1952)
(“[A]s the complaint apparently seeks a declaratory judgment concerning matters which do not
present an actual controversy it clearly fails to state a cause of action.”).
2

1
2

himself.”) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
A.J. Scott is cautioned that under California law, “[a]ny person . . . holding himself or

3

herself out as practicing or entitled to practice law or otherwise practicing law who is not an

4

active member of the State Bar, or otherwise authorized pursuant to statute or court rule to

5

practice law in this state at the time of doing so, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to

6

one year in a county jail or by a fine of up to one thousand dollars.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §

7

6126(a).

8

Furthermore, under federal law, A.J. Scott may not represent Alaric Donya Scott, Jr. under

9

a “Special Power of Attorney,” or as his duly “authorized Trustee,” or “agent.” See In re Foster,

10

2012 WL 6554718, *5 (9th Cir. B.A.P. Dec. 14, 2012); Barker v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, 2016

11

WL 9453816, at *1 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 25, 2016) (“[T]he existence of a power of attorney does not

12

authorize a nonlawyer to undertake to conduct legal proceedings on behalf of a pro

13

se litigant where the law otherwise requires that such proceedings be conducted by a licensed

14

attorney.”) (citation and quotation marks omitted); Harris v. Philadelphia Police Dep’t, 2006 WL

15

3025882, *3 (E.D. Pa. 2006) (“[F]ederal courts do not permit a non-attorney to engage in the

16

unauthorized practice of law by pursuing an action pro se with the plaintiff’s power of attorney”);

17

Hale Joy Tr. v. C.I.R., 57 Fed.Appx. 323, 324 (9th Cir. 2003) (“A non-attorney trustee may not

18

represent a trust pro se in an Article III court.”).

19

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

20

1. The action be dismissed without leave to amend.

21

2. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis in this court (ECF No. 2) be denied as

22

moot.

23

3. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case.

24

In light of these recommendations, IT IS ALSO HEREBY ORDERED that all pleading,

25

discovery, and motion practice in this action are stayed pending resolution of these findings and

26

recommendations. Other than objections to the findings and recommendations or non-frivolous

27

motions for emergency relief, the court will not entertain or respond to any pleadings or motions

28

until the findings and recommendations are resolved.
3

1

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

2

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14)

3

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

4

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

5

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

6

shall be served on all parties and filed with the court within fourteen (14) days after service of the

7

objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

8

waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th

9

Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991).

10

Dated: April 11, 2018

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15

14/ps.18-486.scott.f&r dismiss wolta

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4