Miller v. Judge Stephen Ruyle, et al.,

Filing 10

ORDER ADOPTING the REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 3 in that this case is dismissed without prejudice on the ground that petitioner is not an attorney at law authorized by statute, rule, or case law to represent the interests of Clair Miller. Signed by Judge James L. Graham on 9/30/15. (sem)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
Rosanna Lynn Miller, on
behalf of Clair Ray Miller,
Petitioner,
v.

Case No. 2:15-cv-2755

Judge Stephen Ruyle,
et al.,
Respondents.
ORDER
This is a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §2254 filed by petitioner Rosanna Lynn Miller pro se on
behalf of her father, Clair Ray Miller.

Petitioner alleges that

Mr. Miller is being illegally detained against his will at an
assisted living facility.

This matter is before the court on the

August 26, 2015, report and recommendation of the magistrate judge,
who reviewed this case pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, and
recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice on the
ground that petitioner is not an attorney.

On September 14, 2015,

petitioner filed an objection to the report and recommendation, and
on September 15, 2015, petitioner filed an amended petition.
If a party objects within the allotted time to a report and
recommendation, the court “shall make a de novo determination of
those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1);
see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

Upon review, the Court “may

accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations

made

by

the

magistrate

judge.”

28

U.S.C.

§636(b)(1).
The magistrate judge correctly noted that 28 U.S.C. §1654
“does not permit plaintiffs to appear pro se where interests other
than their own are at stake.”

Shepherd v. Wellman, 313 F.3d 963,

970 (6th Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a); Cochran v.
Nelson, No. 93-3521, 1994 WL 28648 at *3 (6th Cir. 1994).
Plaintiff’s objection sets forth her past experiences with various
counsel in litigating the matter of her father’s placement in an
assisted living facility.

However, these circumstances do not

excuse the lack of counsel in the instant case.

The court also

notes that the amended petition filed on September 15, 2015, like
the original petition, seeks to litigate the rights of Clair
Miller. Because no attorney has entered an appearance in this case
on behalf of Mr. Miller, the court agrees with the magistrate
judge’s recommendation that this action must be dismissed.
The court hereby denies plaintiff’s objection (Doc. 5) and
adopts and affirms the report and recommendation (Doc. 3).
Pursuant to Rule 4, this action is dismissed without prejudice on
the ground that petitioner is not an attorney at law authorized by
statute, rule, or case law to represent the interests of Clair
Miller.

Date: September 30, 2015

s/James L. Graham
James L. Graham
United States District Judge

2