Serna v. Webster

Filing 103

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION by Magistrate Judge William P. Lynch as to Serna & Associates and LR 83.7. Objections to PFRD due by 4/26/2017. Add 3 days to the deadline if service is by mailing it to the person's last known address (or means described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(D) and (F)); if service is by electronic means, no additional days are added. (Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d); Fed. R. Crim. P. 45(c).) Please note that the only correction to this document is the title. (dr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
EMMA SERNA d/b/a Serna & Associates
Construction Co., LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.

CV 17-20 JB/WPL

MARGETTE WEBSTER; DAVID WEBSTER;
STATE OF NEW MEXICO, U.S. Judicial
Court Division; CLAYTON CROWLEY;
ALEX CHISHOLM; CARL BUTKUS; CINDY MOLINA;
ALAN MALOTT; BEATRICE BRICKHOUSE;
BOBBY JO WALKER; JAMES O’NEAL;
ROBERT BOB SIMON; ESTATE OF PAUL F. BECHT;
CARL A. CALVERT; JOEY MOYA; AMY MAYER;
GARCIA MADELIENE; ARTHUR PEPIN; MONICA ZAMORA;
CHERYL ORTEGA; JOHN DOE #1; PAT MCMURRAY;
MARTHA MUTILLO; SALLY GALANTER; NEW MEXICO
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES DIVISION; ROBERT “MIKE”
UNTHANK; MARTIN ROMERO; AMANDA ROYBAL;
NAN NASH; and JOHN WELLS,
Defendants.

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
Pro se Plaintiff Emma Serna purports to bring numerous claims on behalf of herself and
her business, Serna & Associates Construction Co., LLC. Serna has been warned that pro se
parties may not bring claims on behalf of or represent other individuals or business entities. (See
Doc. 9 (Rule 83.7 letter directing Serna to retain counsel for Serna & Associates); Doc. 44
(giving Serna an additional 30 days to find counsel for Serna & Associates, and reminding her
that the business entity must be represented by counsel).) Despite the extremely long period of

time Serna has had to retain counsel for Serna & Associates, counsel has not entered an
appearance on behalf of Serna & Associates.
District of New Mexico Local Rule 83.7 states that “[a] corporation, partnership or
business entity other than a natural person must be represented by an attorney authorized to
practice before this Court.” In an unpublished decision, the Tenth Circuit explicitly stated that
“[n]on-attorney pro se litigants cannot represent other pro se parties.” Perry v. Stout, 20 F. App’x
780, 782 (10th Cir. 2001) (unpublished) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1654). Under both standards, Serna
cannot represent Serna & Associates.
Despite being afforded ample opportunity to retain counsel, Serna & Associates remains
unrepresented and incompetent to prosecute this action. Accordingly, I recommend that the
Court dismiss without prejudice all claims purportedly brought by Serna & Associates and
remove Serna & Associates from this case.

THE PARTIES ARE NOTIFIED THAT WITHIN 14 DAYS OF SERVICE of a
copy of these Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition they may file written objections
with the Clerk of the District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party must file any
objections with the Clerk of the District Court within the fourteen-day period if that party
wants to have appellate review of the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition. If
no objections are filed, no appellate review will be allowed.

___________________________________
William P. Lynch
United States Magistrate Judge

A true copy of this order was served
on the date of entry--via mail or electronic
means--to counsel of record and any pro se
party as they are shown on the Court’s docket.

2