Davis-Brown et al v. Gruenber et al

Filing 2

ORDER directing the plaintiffs to amend their 1 Complaint filed by Walter J. Brown, Jr with a proper signature page. ( Compliance due by 9/28/2016.) Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 9/14/16. (wwp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
MARY E. DAVIS-BROWN, et al. ,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MARTON J. GRUENBER, et al. ,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV416-240

ORDER
Proceeding pro se, plaintiffs Mary Davis Brown, Walter Brown, Jr.,
B’s Thoroughbred Motors, and Wheaton Street Business Exchange filed
this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against several apparently
unrelated defendants: the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC),
Marton J. Gruenber (agency executive), Seneca Mortgage Servicing,
James Depalm (president of Senecca Mortgage Servicing), and Susan Reid
(general counsel at the Law Firm of McCalla Raymer, LLC). Doc. 1.
Plaintiffs allege violations of the First and Fourteenth
Amendments, the Georgia Constitution, the Americans with Disabilities

Act (ADA), and the Health Insurance Portability Accountability Act
(HIPPA), as well as a claim for breach of contract, and seek $7,000,000 in
damages plus attorney’s fees and costs of litigation.

Id. The Court

would ordinarily preliminarily screen their Complaint, 1 but it must pause
because of an apparent Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a) violation:
Every pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by
at least one attorney of record in the attorney's name -- or by a party
personally if the party is unrepresented. The paper must state the
signer's address, e-mail address, and telephone number. Unless a
rule or statute specifically states otherwise, a pleading need not be
verified or accompanied by an affidavit. The court must strike an
unsigned paper unless the omission is promptly corrected after
being called to the attorney's or party's attention.
Rule 11(a).
No one has signed the Complaint. Doc. 1. Also, because each
plaintiff here is proceeding pro se , none has any authority to represent the
legal interest of any other party.

See FuQua v. Massey , 615 F. App’x 611

(11th Cir. 2015) (right of parties to appear pro se is limited to parties
1

District courts have the inherent power to dismiss sua sponte frivolous lawsuits,
even those where the plaintiff pays the full filing fee. See Cuyler v. Aurora Loan
Services, LLC , 2012 WL 10488184 at * 2 (11th Cir. 2012) (notwithstanding filing fee
payment, “a district court has the inherent authority to dismiss a patently frivolous
complaint”); Jefferson Fourteenth Assocs. v. Wometco de Puerto Rico, Inc. , 695 F.2d
524, 526 n.3 (11th Cir. 1983) (noting that courts may sua sponte dismiss actions for
lacking merit “if the proper procedural steps are taken and if the determination is
correct on the merits”); Wilkerson v. Georgia , 2014 WL 3644179 at * 1 (S.D. Ga. July
21, 2014) (dismissing pro se complaint on frivolity grounds even though plaintiff paid
full filing fee), rev’d on other grounds , 618 F. App’x 610 (11th Cir. 2015).
2

conducting their own cases and does not extend to non-attorney parties
representing the interests of other).
Hence, each plaintiff must sign his or her own name, thus signifying
that they represent only themselves.
Within 14 days of the date this Order is served, then, the plaintiffs
shall amend their Complaint 2 with a proper signature page. Failure to
do so will likely be fatal to their claim. Rule 11(a) (courts “must strike an
unsigned paper unless the omission is promptly corrected after being
called to the attorney’s or party’s attention”). Every filing thereafter
must similarly abide by Rule 11(a)’s signature requirement.

See Bouttry

v. United States , 2012 WL 2153961 at *1 (S.D. Ga. June 13, 2012). And
corporations can appear only through counsel.

Palazzo v. Gulf Oil Corp .,

764 F.2d 1381, 1385 (11th Cir. 1985) (a corporation “is an artificial entity
that can act only through agents, cannot appear pro se , and must be
represented by counsel”). Even when the person seeking to represent

2

Plaintiffs are advised that their amended complaint will supersede the original
complaint and therefore must be complete in itself. Once Plaintiffs file an amended
complaint, the original pleading will no longer serve any function in the case. See
Malowney v. Fed. Collection Deposit Grp , 193 F.3d 1342, 1345 n.1 (11th Cir. 1999)
(“An amended complaint supersedes an original complaint”); Varnes v. Local 91, Glass
Bottle Blowers Ass’n of U.S. & Canada , 674 F.2d 1365, 1370 n.6 (11th Cir. 1982) (“As a
general rule, an amended complaint supersedes and replaces the original complaint
unless the amendment specifically refers to or adopts the earlier pleading”).
3

the corporation is its president or major stockholder, the corporation

must be represented by counsel.

Id.

SO ORDERED this 14th day of September, 2016.

UMIED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEOR(ILL

4