BURROUGHS et al v. HILL et al

Filing 43

ORDER Denying 42 MOTION for Extension of Time to File OBJECTION as to 37 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 6 Amended Complaint/Petition filed by TORRES ANTWAN BURROUGHS and Striking 41 Objection to Report and Recommendations, filed by TORRES ANTWAN BURROUGHS Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE TILMAN E SELF, III on 05/19/2023. (elp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
TORRES ANTWAN BURROUGHS,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL ACTION NO.
5:22-cv-00272-TES-TQL

v.
FNU HILL, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER

On May 19, 2023, Plaintiff Torres Burroughs “filed” Objections [Doc. 41] to the
magistrate judge’s Recommendation, along with a Motion for Extension of Time to File
Objections [Doc. 42]. However, both documents were signed by someone other than
Plaintiff. See [Doc. 41, p. 4 (signed “by POA”)]; [Doc. 42 (same)]. Even more, the filings
were mailed from “S. Burroughs” at 6 Mossy Court, “Sav’h, GA” 31419. [Doc. 41-10].
Plaintiff, however, is currently housed at Wilcox State Prison in Abbeville, Georgia.
[Doc. 35]; [Doc. 36].
It is black-letter law that a non-lawyer cannot represent someone in a legal
proceeding. That includes those purporting to act under power of attorney. Jacox v.
Dep’t of Def., No. 5:06CV182 HL, 2007 WL 118102, at *1 (M.D. Ga. Jan. 10, 2007) (“By its
own terms [28 U.S.C.] § 1654 requires those persons who seek to represent themselves
in federal courts to do so ‘personally,’ thereby foreclosing on the possibility that such

representation could occur by proxy.”); Brown v. Great N. Ins. Co., No. 2:14-CV-00015RWS, 2015 WL 898357, at *10 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 3, 2015) (“Consequently, the existence of a
power of attorney does not authorize a non-lawyer to conduct legal proceedings on
behalf of a pro se litigant[.]”). Further, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 requires each
pleading filed in a federal court to be signed personally by the party representing
themselves. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Rule 11 further instructs courts to strike a document that
is improperly signed. Accordingly, the Court STRIKES Plaintiff’s Objections [Doc. 41].
As to Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Objections, the Court
previously granted Plaintiff additional time to file his objections. See [Doc. 40 (extending
the deadline for objections to May 29, 2023)]. Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff
Motion for Extension of Time [Doc. 42]. Plaintiff must file any objections on or before
May 29, 2023.
SO ORDERED, this 19th day of May, 2023.
S/ Tilman E. Self, III
TILMAN E. SELF, III, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2