Pyankovska et al v. Abid et al

Filing 36

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 17 Plaintiff Lyudmyla Pyankovska's Motion for Permission for Electronic Case Filing is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before 4/28/17, Plaintiff must complete the CM/ECF tutorial. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 4/3/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 *** 7 LYUDMYLA PYANKOVSKA, et al., 8 v. 9 Case No. 2:16-cv-02942-JCM-PAL Plaintiffs, ORDER SEAN ABID, et al., 10 (Mot. for Pro Se Litigant to File Electronically – ECF No. 17) Defendants. 11 12 This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Lyudmyla Pyankovska’s Motion for Permission 13 for Electronic Case Filing (ECF No. 17). This Motion is referred to the undersigned pursuant to 14 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and LR IB 1-3 of the Local Rules of Practice. 15 Plaintiff Lyudmyla Pyankovska is proceeding in this civil rights action pro se, which means 16 that she is not represented by an attorney. See LSR 2-1. On December 20, 2016, Pyankovska 17 initiated this action by filing a Complaint (ECF No. 1) and paying the court’s $400 filing fee. The 18 complaint indicates that four individuals are plaintiffs: Pyankovska, her minor son, A.A., her minor 19 daughter, I.N., and her husband, Rickey Marquez.1 Ms. Pyankovska is the only individual who 20 signed the complaint. She has not retained counsel to represent her children or sought leave of the 21 court to pursue this action on behalf of her minor children. The current motion asks the court to 22 allow Pyankovska to use the court’s CM/ECF system in order to file, access, and electronically 23 serve documents in this case. Having reviewed and considered the matter, and good cause 24 appearing, the court will grant her request. However, she may only file documents on her own 25 behalf. 26 27 28 1 Pursuant to LR IC 6-1 of the Local Rules of Practice, the court has redacted the names of Pyankovska’s minor children. See LR IC 6-1(a)(2) (“If the involvement of a minor child must be mentioned, only the initials of that child should be used.”) 1 1 Only a licensed attorney—an active member of the State Bar of Nevada admitted to 2 practice under the Nevada Supreme Court Rules— is authorized to represent a client in Nevada. 3 Guerin v. Guerin, 993 P.2d 1256, 1258 (Nev. 2000) (citing NRS 7.285); Martinez v. Eighth Jud. 4 Dist. Ct., 729 P.2d 487, 488 (Nev. 1986) (an individual “has no right to be represented by an agent 5 other than counsel in a court of law”). In federal courts “the parties may plead and conduct their 6 own cases personally or by counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1654 (emphasis added). Although an individual 7 is entitled to represent himself or herself, no rule or statute permits a non-attorney to represent any 8 other person, a company, a trust, or any other entity. Jackson v. United Artists Theatre Circuit, 9 Inc., 278 F.R.D. 586, 596 (D. Nev. 2011); Salman v. Newell, 885 P.2d 607, 608 (Nev. 1994). Thus, 10 pro se parties may not pursue claims on behalf of others in a representative capacity. See, e.g., 11 Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664–65 (9th Cir. 2008) (collecting cases and noting 12 that courts routinely prohibit pro se plaintiffs “from pursuing claims on behalf of others in a 13 representative capacity”); Russell v. United States, 308 F.2d 78, 79 (9th Cir. 1962) (“A litigant 14 appearing in propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other than himself.”). 15 Additionally, a parent or guardian may not bring suit in federal court on behalf of their 16 child without first retaining an attorney. Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876 (9th 17 Cir. 1997); see also Buran v. Riggs, 5 F. Supp. 3d 1212, 1215 (D. Nev. 2014) (noting that father 18 could not bring an action on his minor son’s behalf without retaining a lawyer; even if he could 19 not afford to hire a licensed attorney). Rule 17 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a 20 court to “appoint a guardian ad litem--or issue another appropriate order--to protect a minor or 21 incompetent person who is unrepresented in an action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2). Under Rule 22 17(c), a district court has “a legal obligation to consider” whether a minor or incompetent litigant 23 is “adequately protected.” Davis v. Walker, 745 F.3d 1303, 1312 (9th Cir. 2014). As the relevant statutes and case law demonstrates, Ms. Pyankovska is not authorized to 24 25 file documents or make representations to the court on behalf of A.A., I.N., or Rickey Marquez. Accordingly, 26 27 /// 28 /// 2 1 IT IS ORDERED: 2 1. Plaintiff Lyudmyla Pyankovska’s Motion for Permission for Electronic Case Filing 3 (ECF No. 17) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART: 4 a. She is authorized to file documents on behalf of herself. 5 b. She is not authorized to file documents on behalf of A.A., I.N., or Rickey 6 Marquez, either electronically or by physically submitting filings to the Clerk 7 of the Court. 8 9 2. Plaintiff must comply with the following procedures in order to activate her CM/ECF account: 10 a. On or before April 28, 2017, Plaintiff must complete the CM/ECF tutorial, 11 which is accessible on the court’s website in the Civil 12 & Criminal Events Menu, and file certification indicating that she is familiar 13 with the electronic filing procedures and best practices. 14 15 16 17 18 b. Plaintiff is not authorized to file electronically unless the certification is filed with the court within the specified time frame. c. Upon timely filing of the certification, Plaintiff shall contact Robert Johnson at the CM/ECF Help Desk at (702) 464-5555 to set up a CM/ECF account. Dated this 3rd day of April, 2017. 19 20 PEGGY A. LEEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?