Harper et al v. Lotze et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM OPINION by Senior Judge Charles R. Simpson, III on 2/1/2013; the court will enter a separate order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion.cc: Roberta Harper (TLB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE
ROBERTA L. HARPER et al.
v.

PLAINTIFFS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13CV-1-S

GAIL LOTZE et al.

DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on initial review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e) and McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997). Upon review, a district
court must dismiss a case at any time if it determines that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). For the reasons that follow, the Court will
dismiss the action.
Samuel J. Harper1 filed this Title VII action on behalf of Roberta L. Harper. Section 1654
of title 28 of the United States Code provides, “In all courts of the United States the parties may
plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts,
respectively, are permitted to manage.” That statute, however, “does not permit plaintiffs to appear
pro se where interests other than their own are at stake.” Shepherd v. Wellman, 313 F.3d 963, 970
(6th Cir. 2002); Gonzales v. Wyatt, 157 F.3d 1016, 1021 (5th Cir. 1998) (“[I]n federal court a party
can represent himself or be represented by an attorney, but cannot be represented by a nonlawyer.”);
Eagle Assocs. v. Bank of Montreal, 926 F.2d 1305, 1308 (2d Cir. 1991) (advising that § 1654 “‘does
not allow for unlicensed laymen to represent anyone else other than themselves’”) (citation
omitted). Additionally, five days after the complaint was filed, Roberta Harper filed a motion to

1

A notice was filed in another case filed by Samuel Harper advising that he passed away
on January 11, 2013. See Harper v. Tindall, No. 3:10CV-735-S (DN 209).

dismiss this action without prejudice. For these reasons, the claims brought on behalf of Roberta
Harper will be dismissed.
Although Samuel Harper listed himself as a Plaintiff in the caption, he did not list himself as
a Plaintiff in the parties section of the complaint form, and none of the allegations in the complaint
appear to pertain to him. The complaint, therefore, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted as to that Plaintiff and will be dismissed.
The Court will enter a separate Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion.
Date:

February 1, 2013

C al R Smpo I , ei J d e
h r s . i sn I Sno u g
e
I
r
U i dSae Ds i C ut
nt tt ir t o r
e
s tc
cc:
Roberta Harper
4411.005

2