Jacobsen et al v. State of Nebr. Court System et al
ORDER - IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1. Robert Jacobsen is dismissed from this action. 2. Jesse Jacobsen remains a Plaintiff and his Motion for Leave to Proceed IFP 2 is granted. Jesse Jacobsen may proceed without payment of fees. Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se parties)(PCV, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA JESSE JACOBSEN, and ROBERT JACOBSEN, ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) STATE OF NEBR. COURT ) SYSTEM, D.E.A., Sgt. Sabada & ) Team, DISTRICT ATT, PROS. ATT, ) PUBLIC DEF., JUDGES, STATE, all ) of them, ALL LAWYERS IN NEBR., ) POLICE, and SUPREME COURT ) JUDGES, all of them, ) ) Defendants. ) 4:10CV3057
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Jesse Jacobsen's Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ("IFP"). (Filing No. 2.) Plaintiff Robert Jacobsen has not filed a Motion to Proceed IFP or signed the Complaint. (See Docket Sheet; Filing No. 1.) For the reasons discussed below, Robert Jacobsen is dismissed from this action and Jesse Jacobsen may proceed without payment of fees. Plaintiffs Jesse Jacobsen and Robert Jacobsen, who are proceeding pro se, filed their Complaint in this matter on April 2, 2010. (Filing No. 1.) However, Robert Jacobsen failed to sign the Complaint. (Id.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 states that "every pleading . . . must be signed by at least one attorney of record . . . or by a party personally if the party is unrepresented." Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). Further, "[t]he court must strike an unsigned paper unless the omission is promptly corrected after being called to the attorney's or party's attention." Id.
On April 5, 2010, the court entered a text notice of deficiency and mailed it to the address provided by Plaintiffs. (Filing No. 5.) In doing so, the court warned Plaintiffs that the Complaint could be stricken if the deficiency was not corrected within 15 days.1 (Id.) The deficiency deadline has now passed and Robert Jacobsen failed to sign the Complaint. (See Docket Sheet.) Because Robert Jacobsen failed to sign the Complaint by the court's deadline, he is dismissed from this action. In contrast, the court has reviewed Jesse Jacobsen's Motion for Leave to Proceed IFP and finds that he is financially eligible to proceed without payment of fees. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1. Robert Jacobsen is dismissed from this action.
2. Jesse Jacobsen remains a Plaintiff and his Motion for Leave to Proceed IFP (filing no. 2) is granted. Jesse Jacobsen may proceed without payment of fees. DATED this 3rd day of May, 2010. BY THE COURT:
s/ Joseph F. Bataillon Chief United States District Judge
The court notes that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c)(1), a duly appointed representative may sue or defend on behalf of an incompetent person. In addition, an incompetent person who does not have a duly appointed representative may sue by a next friend or by a guardian ad litem. Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2). However, a pro se litigant who is not an attorney may not represent someone else in federal court. See, e.g., Osei-Afriyie v. Med. Coll. of Penn., 937 F.2d 876, 882-82 (3d Cir. 1991) (concluding that it is not in the interest of minors or incompetents that they be represented by non-attorneys).
*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The U.S. District Court for
the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.
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?