REIHNER et al v. WASHINGTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA et al

Filing 35

ORDER denying 34 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying 25 Motion for Default Judgment; denying 26 Motion for Default Judgment. As more fully stated in the Order filed herewith, the Motions filed at Documents 25 , 26 , and 34 are DENIED. Signed by Judge Cathy Bissoon on 10/2/2015. (rld) Staff note: Copies of the Order have been mailed to Plaintiffs via First Class U.S. Mail at their addresses of record.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WILLIAM REIHNER, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
WASHINGTON COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 15-143
Judge Cathy Bissoon

ORDER
I.

ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motions for Default Judgment (Docs. 25 and

26) are DENIED. Defendants clearly are participating in this lawsuit and default judgment
would be inappropriate. Defendants are cautioned, however, that the deadlines in this case – like
any other case -- are not “loose.” Defendants are to observe all future deadlines or file a timely
motion for extension of time.

II.

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO AMEND/CORRECT PLEADING
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend Plaintiffs [sic] Motion

Objecting to Defendants [sic] Motion for Dismissal (Doc. 34) is DENIED because the Court is
unable to ascertain the relief requested or the reasons for the Motion. While the Court
recognizes that Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se, the Court cannot be expected to decipher the
undecipherable.

III.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
The Complaint in this action was filed on behalf of three individuals, yet only signed by

two. In federal court, a non-lawyer cannot represent another party. See, e.g., Osei–Afriye v. The
Medical Coll. of Pennsylvania, 937 F.2d 876 (3d Cir.1991) (non-lawyer appearing pro se may
not act as attorney for his children); Alexander v. New Jersey State Parole Bd., 160 F. App'x
159, 160 n. 1 (3d Cir. Dec. 28, 2005) (holding prisoner proceeding pro se may not act on behalf
of his fellow inmates); Lutz v. Lavelle, 809 F.Supp. 323, 325 (M.D.Pa.1991) (stating “well
established principle that while a layman may represent himself with respect to his individual
claims, he is not entitled to act as an attorney for others in federal court”); DePonceau v. Pataki,
315 F.Supp.2d 338, 341 (W.D.N.Y.2004) (“[P]laintiffs have no statutory nor constitutional right
to be represented in federal court by a nonlawyer.”). Accordingly, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
that no later than October 15, 2015, Plaintiffs show cause as to (1) why the claims brought on
behalf of Plaintiff Cameron Reihner should not be dismissed for failure to sign the complaint and
(2) why all documents filed by William Reihner only should not be stricken from the record to
the extent that they purport to apply to any other Plaintiff. The response to this show cause order
shall be made by submitting the original document, in person or by First-Class U.S. Mail, to the
Clerk of this Court. Should the Court not receive a response to this order by October 15, 2015,
all claims made on behalf of Cameron Reihner will be dismissed, and all other documents
purportedly filed on behalf of anyone other than William Reihner will be stricken.

IV.

ORDER SETTING DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO
DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS
Plaintiffs shall file a response to both (1) Defendants Washington County, Washington

County District Attorney Office, Washington County Assistant District Attorney Michael
2

Fagela’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 27) and (2) Defendant Pete Marcoline Blackwell and
Associates’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 30) by October 23, 2015. Such responses must be filed
either individually by each Plaintiff or by one response personally signed by all Plaintiffs in the
case. The responses shall be made by submitting the original document, in person or by FirstClass U.S. Mail, to the Clerk of this Court.
V.

General Court Practice
Each party shall serve upon the opposing party a copy of every filing submitted for

consideration by the Court, and the parties shall include on the originally filed document a
certificate stating the date that the document was mailed to each opposing party (“certificate of
service”).
Any document received by the Court that has not been filed with the Clerk of Court, or
which fails to include a certificate of service, will be disregarded by the Court.
Plaintiffs and Counsel for Defendants must familiarize themselves with the Practices and
Procedures of the undersigned on the Court’s website (see web page at
http://www.pawd.uscourts.gov/Documents/Judge/bissoon_pp.pdf), and they will be held
responsible for complying with such practices and procedures.
Notwithstanding Plaintiffs’ pro se status, it is the Court’s expectation that Plaintiffs will
comply with all Court orders, deadlines, practices and procedures.

October 2, 2015

s\Cathy Bissoon
Cathy Bissoon
United States District Judge

cc (via ECF email notification):
All counsel of record

3

cc (via First-Class U.S. Mail):
WILLIAM REIHNER
741 EAST 13TH STREET
ERIE, PA 16503
JENNIFER REIHNER
741 EAST 13TH STREET
ERIE, PA 16503
CAMERON REIHNER
741 EAST 13TH STREET
ERIE, PA 16503

4