Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01396/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01396-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 The petition erroneously states that it is brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2242. 1

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL P. CASHMAN, et al.,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-1396 MCE GGH P

vs.

JOSEPH S. WARCHOL, II,

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

On June 22, 2006, Daniel P. Cashman, a non-attorney, filed this habeas corpus

petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 purportedly on behalf of a minor identified as B.W. On 1

July 26, 2006, the court ordered Cashman to show cause why this action should not be dismissed. 

On August 8, 2006, petitioner filed a response to the show cause order. For the following

reasons, the court recommends that this action be dismissed.

Appearances in federal court are governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1654. While a nonattorney may represent him or herself in a lawsuit, he or she has no authority to appear as an

attorney for others. “[A] parent or guardian may not bring an action on behalf of a minor child

without retaining a lawyer.” Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 877 (9 Cir. 1997). th

Case 2:06-cv-01396-MCE -GGH Document 8 Filed 08/18/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

See also Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 202, 113 S.Ct. 716, 721

(1993)(unincorporated association must appear through counsel); C.E. Pope Equity Trust v.

United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9 Cir. 1987)(dismissing complaint signed only by nonlawyer th

trustee); Church of the New Testament v. United States, 783 F.3d 771, 772 (9 Cir. 1987)(church th

must appear in court through a licensed attorney); Iannoccone v. Law, 142 F.3d 553, 558 (2d Cir.

1998) (estate’s action cannot be conducted pro se); Pridgen v. Andresen, 113 F.3d 391, 393 (2d

Cir. 1997) (same). 

The instant action is not proper insofar as petitioner Cashman, a non-lawyer,

purports to bring this action on behalf of another party. The court has reviewed petitioner

Cashman’s response to the show cause order and finds no good cause to permit him to bring this

action on behalf of another party. Accordingly, this action should be dismissed.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 8/17/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

cash1396.dis

Case 2:06-cv-01396-MCE -GGH Document 8 Filed 08/18/06 Page 2 of 2