-1- 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

WESTLEY JOHNSON, 

 Plaintiff, 

 Case No. 14-cv-14171 

Honorable Gershwin A. Drain 

v. 

 

ZINA JOHNSON, 

ERIC JOHNSON, 

 Defendants. 

 / 

ORDER EXTENDING ZINA JOHNSON’S 

DATE TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT 

On October 29, 2014, Plaintiff, an inmate, filed a pro se Complaint and Application to 

Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees pursuant to Chapter 18 Section 2255(a) of the United 

States Code. See Dkt. No. 1. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that he was taken from 

Michigan to Ohio and sexually abused by Zina and Eric Johnson (collectively “Defendants”). 

Id. On November 13, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed Without 

Prepayment of Fees and directed the United States Marshal’s Service to serve Defendants. See 

Dkt. No. 3. On November 25, 2014 Eric Johnson filed an Answer to the Complaint on his own 

behalf. See Dkt. No. 5. Additionally, Eric Johnson asserted that the Answer was filed on behalf 

of Zina Johnson, and that he would be representing her in this matter. Id. 

 In federal court, a party may represent himself or be represented by an attorney, but 

cannot be represented by a non-lawyer. See 28 U.S.C. § 1654 (stating that, in federal court, 

parties must either conduct their own cases personally or through counsel); see also Shepherd v. 

Wellman, 313 F.3d 963, 970 (6th Cir.2002) (“[Section 1654] does not permit plaintiffs to appear 

2:14-cv-14171-GAD-MKM Doc # 7 Filed 12/09/14 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 50
-2- 

pro se where interests other than their own are at stake”) (citing Iannaccone v. Law, 142 F.3d 

553, 558 (2nd Cir.1998) (“[B]ecause pro se means to appear for one's self a person may not 

appear on another person's behalf in the other's cause.”)); Eagle Associates v. Bank of Montreal,

926 F.2d 1305, 1308 (2nd Cir.1991) (“[Section 1654] does not allow for unlicensed laymen to 

represent anyone else other than themselves.”) (citing additional authority); Jackson v. Comm'r 

of Soc. Sec., No. 12-cv-13679, 2013 WL 2338716, at *2 (E.D. Mich. May 29, 2013) (declining to 

consider Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment because it was filed by Plaintiff’s mother, a 

non-attorney). 

Thus, Eric Johnson is not permitted to represent Zina Johnson in this matter. The Court 

acknowledges Eric Johnson’s Answer, but notes that Zina Johnson is required to file her own 

response to the Complaint through counsel or on her own behalf. The Court also notes that, 

because Defendants were served on November 11, 2014, the original date for responding to the 

Complaint has now passed. See Dkt. No. 4 (acknowledging receipt of service on November 11, 

2014); Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(a)(1)(A)(i) (dictating that a defendant must serve an answer within 

21 days after being served with the summons and complaint). Accordingly, in light of the 

confusion created by the initial Answer, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the date by which Zina 

Johnson must answer, move, or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint shall be, and is, 

extended until December 19, 2014.1

 

SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 9, 2014 

 /s/Gershwin A Drain 

 Hon. Gershwin A. Drain 

 United States District Court Judge

 

1

 Should the Court receive no response, a Default Judgment may be entered against Defendant Zina Johnson 

pursuant to the Federal Rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). 

2:14-cv-14171-GAD-MKM Doc # 7 Filed 12/09/14 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 51