Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00337/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00337-0/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JULIA C. VENOYA,

Petitioner,

 v.

SAN MATEO COUNTY PUBLIC

GUARDIAN,

Respondent. /

No. C 07-00337 CRB

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION

TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

AND DISMISSING HABEAS

PETITION

Now before the Court is petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). 

A court may authorize a plaintiff to prosecute an action in federal court without prepayment

of fees or security if the plaintiff submits an affidavit showing that he or she is unable to pay

such fees or give security therefor. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). A court is under a continuing

duty, however, to dismiss a case proceeding in forma pauperis whenever it determines that

the action “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be

granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-- (iii).

Shirley V. Remmert has filed this habeas corpus action on behalf of her mother, Julia

C. Venoya. The San Mateo County Superior Court appointed the San Mateo County Public

Guardian Ms. Venoya’s conservator in late 2004. The petition for habeas corpus, signed by

Shirley Remmert on her mother’s behalf, challenges the conservatorship which the petition 

Case 3:07-cv-00337-CRB Document 11 Filed 03/23/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\CRBALL\2007\0337\orderdismissingpetition.wpd 2

characterizes as “illegal.” The petition must be dismissed because Ms. Remmert may not

prosecute this action on her mother’s behalf; instead, any such action must be brought by the

court-appointed guardian. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c). 

In any event, even assuming Ms. Remmert had standing to pursue claims on behalf of

her mother, Ms. Remmert–as a non-attorney–may not prosecute the action on Ms. Venoya’s

behalf. See Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876-77 (9th Cir. 1997); C.E. Pope

Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir.1987); see also Mann v. Boatright,

477 F.3d 1140 (10th Cir. Feb. 15, 2007) (holding that pro se litigate could not prosecute

action on behalf of father to challenge the appointment of a conservator). It is apparent from

the pleadings that Ms. Remmert is representing her mother: all pleadings and affidavits are

signed by Ms. Remmert on Ms. Venoya’s behalf. 

Accordingly, this habeas petition is DISMISSED. Ms. Remmert is instructed not to

file any further habeas petitions on behalf of her mother.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 23, 2007 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-00337-CRB Document 11 Filed 03/23/07 Page 2 of 2