Roberts et al v. State of Tennessee et al

Filing 110

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: For the above reasons, the Court ORDERS that the motions referenced above (Docket Entry Nos. 35, 70, 95, 96, 97, 100, 101, 104, 105, 106, 107 and 108) be STRICKEN as improperly filed, but without prejudice to plaintiffs rights to refile such motions provided they bear the signatures of both named plaintiffs. It is so ORDERED. Signed by Magistrate Judge John S. Bryant on 6/29/12. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(tmw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
CHARLES H. ROBERTS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
STATE OF TENNESSEE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. 3:11-1127
Judge Sharp/Bryant

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiffs Charles H. Roberts and Marshall H. Murdock,
prisoners proceeding pro se, jointly filed this action on August
17, 2011, alleging that defendants have violated their rights
protected by the U.S. Constitution by refusing to allow them
reasonably to practice their religion, Judaism (Docket Entry No.
1).

On August 23, 2011, the Court granted plaintiffs’ application

to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket Entry No. 4).
On September 8, 2011, plaintiffs Roberts and Murdock
filed their amended complaint (Docket Entry No. 12).
Beginning on December 30, 2011, plaintiff Roberts has
filed a flurry of motions seeking various forms of relief (Docket
Entry Nos. 35, 70, 95, 96, 97, 100, 101, 104, 105, 106, 107 and
108). Each of the foregoing referenced motions were signed only by
plaintiff Roberts and did not bear the signature of plaintiff
Marshall H. Murdock.
Although 28 U.S.C. § 1654 provides that “[i]n all courts
of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own
cases personally or by counsel,” this statute 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) (citing Iannaccone v. Law, 142 F.3d 553, 558 (2nd Cir. 1998)
(“[B]ecause pro se means to appear for one’s self a person may not
appear

on

another

person’s

behalf

in

the

other’s

cause.”)).

Insofar as the record indicates, neither plaintiff Roberts nor
plaintiff Murdock is a licensed attorney.
permitted

to

represent

themselves

pro

se,

Therefore, they are
but

they

permitted to represent the interests of each other.

are

not

Plaintiffs

Roberts and Murdock have chosen to file and prosecute this action
jointly.

Therefore, any motion or other filing on their behalf

must bear the signatures of both plaintiff Roberts and plaintiff
Murdock. Plaintiff Roberts is not permitted to file papers in this
action on behalf of plaintiff Murdock, nor is plaintiff Murdock
permitted to file papers in this action on behalf of plaintiff
Roberts.

The numbered motions referenced above violate this

requirement because only plaintiff Roberts, and not plaintiff
Murdock, signed those motions.
For the above reasons, the Court ORDERS that the motions
referenced above be STRICKEN as improperly filed, but without
prejudice to plaintiffs’ rights to refile such motions provided
they bear the signatures of both named plaintiffs.
It is so ORDERED.
s/ John S. Bryant
JOHN S. BRYANT
United States Magistrate Judge

2