Stevens v. Aranas et al

Filing 4

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that this case is dismissed in its entirety, without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court will send Jose Cruz Arizmendi the approved form application to proceed in forma pauperis by a prisoner, as well as the document entitled information and instructions for filing an in forma pauperis application. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court will send to Jose Cruz Arizmendi the approved form for filing a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint and instructions for the same and a copy of the complaint 1 -1. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court will enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 6/27/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4

THEODORE STEVENS,

5

Plaintiff,

6
7

Case No. 2:17-cv-01373-APG-PAL
ORDER

v.
ROMERO ARANAS et al.,

8

Defendants.

9
10

I.

DISCUSSION

11

On May 12, 2017, Theodore Stevens, a prisoner in the custody of the Nevada

12

Department of Corrections (“NDOC”), submitted a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42

13

U.S.C. § 1983 and filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 1, 1-1).

14

Stevens submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis in his name. (See ECF

15

No. 1). Stevens also identified himself as the plaintiff in the complaint. (ECF No. 1-1 at

16

1, 9). However, after reading the complaint, it is clear that Stevens is suing on behalf of

17

inmate Jose Cruz Arizmendi regarding events that happened to Arizmendi. (Id. at 3-6).

18

In fact, Stevens explicitly states that he is “attorney-in-fact by and through power of

19

attorney” and is prosecuting the action “on behalf and in the interest of Arizmendi.” (Id.

20

at 6). On May 31, 2017, Arizmendi sent a letter updating his address with the Court and

21

stating that “the person who has [his] case is Stevens vs. Aranas et al., 2:17-cv-1373-

22

APG-PAL.” (ECF No. 3 at 1).

23

Pro se litigants have the right to plead and conduct their own cases personally.

24

See 28 U.S.C. § 1654. However, pro se litigants have no authority to represent anyone

25

other than themselves. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.1 (9th Cir. 1995);

26

C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987).

27

The Court dismisses this case, without prejudice, and directs Arizmendi to file his

28

own application to proceed in forma pauperis and his own complaint if he chooses to

1

pursue his claims. Stevens cannot represent Arizmendi in this action and does not have

2

the authority to sue on Arizmendi’s behalf.

3

II.

4
5

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that this case is dismissed in its entirety,

without prejudice.

6

It is further ordered that, if Jose Cruz Arizmendi would like to pursue the claims

7

alleged in the complaint, he may do so by filing his own application to proceed in forma

8

pauperis and his own complaint with this Court.

9

It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Court will send Jose Cruz Arizmendi1 the

10

approved form application to proceed in forma pauperis by a prisoner, as well as the

11

document entitled information and instructions for filing an in forma pauperis application.

12

It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Court will send to Jose Cruz Arizmendi the

13

approved form for filing a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint and instructions for the same and

14

a copy of the complaint (ECF No. 1-1).

15

It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Court will enter judgment accordingly.

16

Dated: June 27, 2017.

17
18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1

Jose Cruz Arizmendi’s address is located in ECF No. 3.
-2-