UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

SHANDA MATHIS on behalf of 

MICHELLE MATHIS,

Plaintiff,

 Civil Action 2:12-cv-84

v. Judge Algenon L. Marbley

 Magistrate Judge E.A. Preston Deavers

STATE OF OHIO PROBATE COURT, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER AND INITIAL SCREEN REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Shanda Mathis (“Ms. Mathis”), a non-attorney, filed this Complaint “on behalf of

Michelle Mathis.” (Compl. 1, ECF No. 1-1.) Ms. Mathis has submitted a request to file a civil

action in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is

GRANTED. All judicial officers who render services in this action shall do so as if the costs

had been prepaid. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). This matter is also before the Court for the initial screen

of Ms. Mathis’ Complaint as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) to identify cognizable claims

and to recommend dismissal of the Complaint, or any portion of it, which is frivolous, malicious,

fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant

who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Having performed the initial screen,

for the reasons that follow, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Court DISMISS the

Complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE on the grounds that Ms. Mathis is not an attorney at law. 

The undersigned further RECOMMENDS that the Court DIRECT the Clerk of Court not

Case: 2:12-cv-00084-ALM-EPD Doc #: 2 Filed: 02/06/12 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
accept for filing any future complaint unless it has been first presented to a Magistrate Judge to

determine whether Ms. Mathis is impermissibly filing the action on behalf of another. 

As set forth above, Ms. Mathis filed this Complaint on behalf of Michelle Mathis

(“Plaintiff”). The Complaint asserts claims only on behalf of Plaintiff. According to the

Complaint, Defendants are wrongfully detaining Plaintiff in the psychiatric ward at Riverside

Hospital. 

A non-attorney may not pursue a legal action on behalf of another in federal court. See

28 U.S.C. § 1654. Section 1654 of the United States Code provides that “[i]n all courts of the

United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by

the rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein.” (Id.) 

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has made clear that this provision “does

not permit plaintiffs to appear pro se where interests other than their own are at stake.” Shepher

v. Wellman, 313 F.3d 963, 970 (6th Cir. 2002). Consistently, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

requires that “[e]very pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by at least one

attorney of record in that attorney’s name—or by a party personally if the party is

unrepresented.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). Thus, dismissal without prejudice is appropriate where a

plaintiff is not conducting his or her own case personally or through counsel. See, e.g., Cochran

v. Nelson, No. 93-3521, 1994 WL 28648, at *3 (6th Cir. 1994) (affirming district court’s

dismissal of the action without prejudice where the plaintiff’s father, a non-attorney, attempted

to represent his son). 

Applying the foregoing here, the undersigned must recommend that the Court dismiss

this action without prejudice. As a non-attorney, Ms. Mathis is not authorized by statute, rule, or

case law to represent Plaintiff. Indeed, both this Court and the Sixth Circuit have recently made

2

Case: 2:12-cv-00084-ALM-EPD Doc #: 2 Filed: 02/06/12 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Ms. Mathis aware of her inability to represent parties in federal court. On February 17, 2011,

this Court dismissed an action without prejudice in which Ms. Mathis attempted to represent her

husband, holding that her husband’s grant of power of attorney did not permit her to serve as his

attorney at law. Mathis v. Ohio Rehab. & Corr., No. 2:10-cv-574, Feb. 17, 2011 Order, ECF No.

13. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the Court’s dismissal, stating that “Mathis is not a party to this

action, and she is not an attorney. Although Mathis alleges that [her husband] gave her power of

attorney, a power of attorney does not permit a non-attorney to represent a party in federal

court.” Mathis v. Ohio Rehab. & Corr., Nos. 2:10-cv-574 and 11-3298, September 28, 2011

Order, ECF No. 16. Similarly, on October 27, 2011, this Court struck filings Ms. Mathis filed on

behalf of another, explaining that she is not permitted to represent another in federal court. 

Mathis v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 2:10-cv-668, October 27, 2011 Order, ECF No. 34. In light

of Ms. Mathis’ history of filing actions on behalf of others, the undersigned recommends that the

Court direct the Clerk of Court to not accept for filing any future complaint unless it has been

first presented to a Magistrate Judge to determine whether Ms. Mathis is impermissibly filing the

action on behalf of another. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: February 6, 2012 /s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers 

 Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers

 United States Magistrate Judge

3

Case: 2:12-cv-00084-ALM-EPD Doc #: 2 Filed: 02/06/12 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>