Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02782/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02782-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rashid Deary-Smith
Plaintiff
John P. Winn
Defendant

Document Text:

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. 

JOHN P. WINN, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:14-cv-2782-MCE-EFB P 

ORDER 

Plaintiff is a county prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners 

seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any 

portion of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 

such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 

 The docket reflects that the following complaints and related documents have been filed 

with the court: (1) an original complaint filed on November 26, 2014; (2) an amended complaint 

filed on December 29, 2014; (3) a request for an extension of time; and (4) over 300 pages of 

exhibits on January 15, 2014. See ECF Nos. 1, 4, 10, 11. The court cannot conduct the required 

screening of these documents, including “plaintiff’s” complaints, because plaintiff has not signed 

Case 2:14-cv-02782-MCE-EFB Document 28 Filed 09/10/15 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

them. Rather, a person named “Patricia L. Smith” has signed the documents, purporting to be 

plaintiff’s “Attorney in Fact.” In another filing titled “Counsel of Choice,” Ms. Smith admits that 

she is not “schooled in the law.” ECF No. 12 at 1. 

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that “[e]very pleading, written 

motion, and other paper . . . be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s name—

or by a party personally if the party is unrepresented.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). In addition, Local 

Rule 183(a) requires that any individual who is representing himself without an attorney must 

appear personally or by courtesy appearance by an attorney and may not delegate that duty to any 

other individual. E.D. Cal. L.R. 183(a). Accordingly, Ms. Smith may not file and sign 

documents on behalf of plaintiff or otherwise represent plaintiff’s interests in this action. See 

Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876-877 (9th Cir. 1997) (a non-lawyer has no 

authority to appear as an attorney for another, and general power of attorney does not give nonlawyer right to assert the personal constitutional claims of another); Robles v. Mgmt. & Training 

Corp., No. 1:09-cv-1279-AWI-GSA, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92155 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2010) 

(denying plaintiff’s motion to allow his daughter, a non-attorney, to represent him in lawsuit). 

Because plaintiff did not sign any of the complaints filed with the court, they must be 

disregarded. Within thirty days, plaintiff may file a signed complaint. That complaint must 

identify all defendants in both the caption and the body, and clearly set forth the allegations 

against each individual defendant. Pursuant to Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

any complaint must include “a short and plain statement of the claim” showing entitlement to 

relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 

 Plaintiff is also hereby informed that it is his responsibility to allege facts to state a 

plausible claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009); Moss v. U.S. Secret 

Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). In order to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a 

plaintiff must allege: (1) the violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right; and (2) that the 

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 

U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). 

///// 

Case 2:14-cv-02782-MCE-EFB Document 28 Filed 09/10/15 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

 A complaint must show that the federal court has jurisdiction and that plaintiff’s action is 

brought in the right place, that plaintiff is entitled to relief if plaintiff’s allegations are true, and 

must contain a request for particular relief. Plaintiff must identify as a defendant only persons 

who personally participated in a substantial way in depriving plaintiff of a federal constitutional 

right. Johnson, 588 F.2d at 743-44 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the deprivation 

of a constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to perform an act 

he is legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). That is, plaintiff may not sue any 

official on the theory that the official is liable for the unconstitutional conduct of his or her 

subordinates. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1948. Because respondeat superior liability is inapplicable to § 

1983 suits, “a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official’s 

own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” Id. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s unsigned filings (including ECF 

Nos. 1, 4, 10, and 11) are disregarded. If plaintiff wishes to proceed with this action, he may file 

a new complaint within 30 days. Failure to comply with this order may result in a 

recommendation of dismissal. 

Dated: September 10, 2015. 

Case 2:14-cv-02782-MCE-EFB Document 28 Filed 09/10/15 Page 3 of 3