UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

JAMES JACKSON, on behalf of

J.J., a minor,

Plaintiff, CASE NO: 09-10041

vs. DISTRICT JUDGE PATRICK J. DUGGAN

MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES E. BINDER

PATRICK CALDWELL, et al,

Defendants.

/

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR COUNSEL

This order is entered under the authority given to this Magistrate

Judge in an Order of Reference issued by District Judge Duggan

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).

In this pending motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to appoint counsel to represent the

minor in this litigation. Minors may not be represented by an adult who is not a licensed

attorney. Rule 17(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that “[w]henever an infant

or incompetent person has a representative, such as a general guardian, . . . the

representative may sue or defend on behalf of the infant or incompetent person.” FED. R.

CIV. P. 17(c). This rule allows a guardian to sue on a minor or incompetent person’s behalf,

but it does not allow the guardian to be the legal representative of the minor or incompetent

person unless the guardian is an attorney.

The federal courts have consistently applied this rule, which was explained by the

Second Circuit in the case of Cheung v. Youth Orchestra Foundation of Buffalo, Inc., 906

F.2d 59 (2d Cir. 1990):

[W]e agree with Meeker v. Kercher, 782 F.2d 153, 154 (10th Cir.1986) (per

curiam), that a non-attorney parent must be represented by counsel in bringing

an action on behalf of his or her child. . . .

It goes without saying that it is not in the interests of minors or

incompetents that they be represented by non-attorneys. Where they

have claims that require adjudication, they are entitled to trained legal

2:09-cv-10041-PJD-CEB Doc # 12 Filed 03/04/09 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 44
assistance so their rights may be fully protected. There is nothing in the

guardian-minor relationship that suggests that the minor’s interests

would be furthered by representation by the non-attorney guardian. Sole

shareholders of corporations are not allowed to represent such corporations pro

se, see National Independent Theatre Exhibitors, Inc. v. Buena Vista

Distribution Co., 748 F.2d 602, 609-10 (11th Cir.1984), cert. denied sub nom.

Patterson v. Buena Vista Distribution Co., 471 U.S. 1056, 105 S. Ct. 2120, 85 L.

Ed. 2d 484 (1985), a circumstance in which the identity of the litigant and pro se

attorney is closer than the present case. To allow guardians to bring pro se

litigation also invites abuse, as the present case may demonstrate.

Id. at 61 (emphasis added). 

The rule and reasoning expressed in Cheung has been uniformly adopted by the

federal courts. See Shepherd v. Wellman, 313 F.3d 963, 970-71 (6th Cir. 2002) (parents

cannot appear pro se on behalf of their minor children); Navin v. Park Ridge School District

64, 270 F.3d 1147 (7th Cir. 2001) (non-custodial parent could not bring suit on behalf of

himself and his son, acting as the son’s next friend, because parent “was free to represent

himself, but as a non-lawyer he has no authority to appear as [son’s] legal representative”);

Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997) (“[w]hile a non-attorney may

appear pro se on his own behalf, he has no authority to appear as an attorney for others than

himself”); Osei-Afriyie v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, 937 F.2d 876, 882 (3d Cir. 1991)

(vacating judgments against children because the parent, “a non-lawyer appearing pro se,

was not entitled to play the role of attorney for his children in federal court”).

While this Court cannot “appoint” an attorney to represent the minor, this matter can

be referred to the Pro Bono Committee in an effort to find counsel willing to undertake

representation of the minor. Therefore, to the extent the pending motion seeks the Court’s

assistance in an effort to find counsel, the motion is GRANTED.

Chambers staff will prepare the necessary information concerning this litigation and

forward the material to the Pro Bono Committee, together with a copy of this Order, in an

effort to obtain pro bono legal representation for the minor plaintiff.

2:09-cv-10041-PJD-CEB Doc # 12 Filed 03/04/09 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 45
Review of this order is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), FED. R. CIV. P. 72, and E.D.

Mich. LR 72.1(d). 

 s/ Charles` E Binder 

CHARLES E. BINDER 

Dated: March 4, 2009 United States Magistrate Judge

CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that this Order was electronically filed this date, and served by first

class mail on James Jackson, #25330-039, at FCI Gilmer, P.O. Box 6000 Glenville, WV,

26351.

Date: March 4, 2009 By s/Jean L. Broucek 

Case Manager to Magistrate Judge Binder

2:09-cv-10041-PJD-CEB Doc # 12 Filed 03/04/09 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 46