Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02781/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02781-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RASHID DEARY-SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

NOAH PHILLIPS,,

Defendant.

No. 2:14-cv-02781 TLN KJN P

FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

The instant lawsuit was purportedly filed on behalf of one Rashid Deary-Smith. The 

operative Amended Complaint (ECF No. 4) alleges that Mr. Deary-Smith is jailed at the Rio 

Cosumnes Correctional Center in Sacramento County, and asserts multiple violations of 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 based on an alleged denial of Mr. Deary-Smith’s Sixth Amendment right to a 

speedy trial. The sole named defendant is Noah Phillips, who is identified as a Sacramento 

County District Attorney. 

Ordinarily, this case would be dismissed under the abstention doctrine announced in 

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1973). Per Younger, a federal court should generally abstain 

from allowing a case to proceed if “there is an ongoing state judicial proceeding, . . . the state 

proceeding implicates important state interests, and . . . there is an adequate opportunity in the 

state proceeding to raise federal constitutional challenges” raised in the federal case. 

Confederated Salish v. Simonich, 29 F.3d 1398, 1402 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Middlesex Cnty. 

Case 2:14-cv-02781-TLN-KJN Document 20 Filed 03/04/15 Page 1 of 3
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

27

28

2

Ethics Comm. v. Garden St. Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982)). The present case, which 

challenges a state court’s alleged denial of plaintiff’s right to a speedy criminal trial, would 

appear to meet all of the Younger factors.

Nevertheless, the instant case presents a more fundamental problem. Every document in 

this case has been filed by one Patricia L. Smith, who styles herself as the “Attorney in Fact” for 

Mr. Deary-Smith. In federal court, parties are only permitted to “plead and conduct their own 

cases personally or by counsel . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1654. “It is well established that the privilege 

to represent oneself pro se provided by § 1654 is personal to the litigant and does not extend to 

other parties or entities.” Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing 

McShane v. U.S., 366 F.2d 286, 288 (9th Cir. 1966)). “Consequently, in an action brought by a 

pro se litigant, the real party in interest must be the person who ‘by substantive law has the right 

to be enforced.’” Id. (quoting C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th 

Cir. 1987)). “[A] non-attorney . . . has no authority to appear as an attorney for others than 

himself [or herself].” C.E. Pope, 818 F.2d at 697.

It does not appear that Patricia L. Smith is a licensed attorney admitted to practice before 

this court. Local Rule 135(g) provides that “[a]ll attorneys who wish to file documents in the 

Eastern District of California must be admitted to practice or admitted to appear pro hac vice.” 

The court’s internal records do not show that an attorney with the name “Patricia L. Smith” has 

been admitted to practice before the Eastern District of California. 

Further, as it is Rashid Deary-Smith whose right to a speedy trial is purportedly being 

denied, it is he who “by substantive law has the right to be enforced.” C.E. Pope, 818 F.2d at 

697. While Patricia L. Smith repeatedly identifies herself as the “attorney in fact” for Rashid 

Deary-Smith, an agency relationship is insufficient to raise this right on Mr. Deary-Smith’s

behalf. If Rashid Deary-Smith wishes to prosecute a lawsuit before this court, he must either sign 

and file all of the necessary documents himself, or retain an attorney licensed to appear before

this court to do so on his behalf. A non-attorney, as Ms. Smith appears to be, may not appear in 

his stead. As it stands, the court cannot even be sure whether Rashid Deary-Smith wanted this 

lawsuit to be filed.

Case 2:14-cv-02781-TLN-KJN Document 20 Filed 03/04/15 Page 2 of 3
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

27

28

3

In light of the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed 

without prejudice.

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 fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 

parties are 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: March 4, 2015

/dear2781.dism

Case 2:14-cv-02781-TLN-KJN Document 20 Filed 03/04/15 Page 3 of 3