Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00336/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00336-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eva D. Al-Zaghari
Petitioner
Marcelle Moon
Respondent
San Mateo County Public Guardian
Respondent

Document Text:

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

EVA D. AL-ZAGHARI,

Petitioner,

 v.

SAN MATEO DEPUTY PUBLIC

GUARDIAN MARCELLE MOON,

Respondent. /

No. C 07-00336 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 daughter, Eva

D. Al-Zagahari. The San Mateo County Superior Court appointed the San Mateo County

Public Guardian Ms. Al-Zaghari’s conservator in 2006. The petition for habeas corpus,

signed by Shirley Remmert on her daughter’s behalf, challenges the conservatorship which 

Case 3:07-cv-00336-CRB Document 9 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\0336\orderdismissingpetition.wpd 2

the petition characterizes as “illegal.” The petition must be dismissed because Ms. Remmert

may not prosecute this action on her daughter’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 daughter, Ms. Remmert–as a non-attorney–may not prosecute the action on Ms. AlZaghari’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 daughter: all pleadings and

affidavits are signed by Ms. Remmert on Ms. Al-Zaghari’s behalf. 

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

file any further habeas petitions on behalf of her daughter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 23, 2007 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-00336-CRB Document 9 Filed 03/23/07 Page 2 of 2