Bailey et al v. Suey et al

Filing 66

ORDER Granting 33 Defendants' Motion to Enforce Payment Fees on Plaintiffs John Scott, Norman Belcher and Gabriel Yates. Show Cause Brief due by 1/21/2014. Responses, if any, due by 1/24/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 01/08/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7 8 9 10 11 ANTHONY BAILEY, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) CPT. RICH SUEY, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________________) Case No. 2:12-cv-01954-JCM-CWH ORDER 12 This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Enforce Payment Fees on 13 Plaintiffs John Scott, Norman Belcher, and Gabriel Yates (#33), filed April 19, 2013. None of the 14 Defendants to whom the motion applies has filed a response. Defendants’ motion (#33) is part of a 15 larger motion seeking to revoke the in forma pauperis status of Plaintiff Anthony Bailey and 16 declare him a vexatious litigant. (#32). Defendants position is that Plaintiffs Scott, Belcher, and 17 Yates are merely “coat-tailing the prosecution of this case through Plaintiff Bailey.” Given this 18 ancillary role, Defendants assert that the Plaintiffs, other than Mr. Bailey, should be required to pay 19 the filing fee or submit petitions to proceed in forma pauperis. 20 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1654, “[i]n all courts of the United States the parties may plead and 21 conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are 22 permitted to manage and conduct causes therein.” Plaintiffs Scott, Belcher, and Yates appear to 23 have signed the complaint in hopes to participate in a putative class action. The motion for class 24 certification, however, was denied and Plaintiffs informed that “[p]ro se prisoner plaintiffs may not 25 bring class actions because they are not adequate class representatives .” (#40). The Court further 26 informed Plaintiffs that a “prisoner has no authority to represent anyone other than himself.” Id. It 27 has long been the case that non-attorney pro se litigant may not represent other parties in litigation 28 in federal court. See Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664-65 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing 1 numerous cases barring pro se litigants from representing other parties. 2 Though obvious, it bears repeating: Plaintiff Anthony Bailey may not represent the interests 3 of others appearing before this Court. As such, it is clear that neither Plaintiff Scott, Belcher, nor 4 Yates filed an opposition to Defendants’ motion (#33).1 Pursuant to Local Rule 7-2(d), “[t]he 5 failure of an opposing party to file points and authorities in response to any motion shall constitute 6 a consent to the granting of the motion.” Accordingly, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion as 7 follows: Plaintiffs Scott, Belcher, and Yates will be ordered to show cause, in writing, why they 8 should not have to either pay the filing fee or submit individual applications to proceed in forma 9 pauperis. 10 Based on the foregoing and good cause appearing therefore, 11 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Enforce Payment Fees on 12 Plaintiffs John Scott, Norman Belcher, and Gabriel Yates (#33) is granted. Plaintiffs Scott, 13 Belcher, and Yates are ordered to SHOW CAUSE, in writing, why they should not have to pay the 14 filing fee or submit individual applications to proceed in forma pauperis. The show cause briefing 15 is due not later than Tuesday, January 21, 2014. Defendants response, if any, shall be filed by 16 Friday, January 24, 2014. Unless further ordered, no replies will be considered. FAILURE TO 17 COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER WILL RESULT IN A RECOMMENDATION THAT 18 PLAINTIFFS SCOTT, BELCHER, AND YATES BE DISMISSED FROM THIS LAWSUIT. 19 DATED: January 8, 2014. 20 21 22 ______________________________________ C.W. Hoffman, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Though Plaintiff Bailey filed a response (#34), he is not authorized to submit filings on behalf of the other named Plaintiffs. 2

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?