Case Name: Sarah RAFFAELLY; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SISKIYOU COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-24
Citations: 271 F. App'x 576
Docket Number: No. 06-16612
Parties: Sarah RAFFAELLY; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SISKIYOU COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 271
Pages: 576–577

Head Matter:
Sarah RAFFAELLY; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SISKIYOU COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 06-16612.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 18, 2008.
Filed March 24, 2008.
Charles Schnepp, Smith River, CA, pro se.
Sarah Raffaelly, Yreka, CA, pro se.
Philip B. Price, Chico, CA, Yoshinori H.T. Himel, Esq., Assistant U.S., USSAC-Offiee of the U.S. Attorney, Sean K. Hun-gerford, Diepenbrock Law Firm, Sacramento, CA, David E. Martinek, Dun & Martinek, Eureka, CA, Robert M. Harding, Carr, Kennedy, Peterson & Frost, Redding, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: CANBY, T.G. NELSON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Sarah Raffaelly, on behalf of her deceased father's estate, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing her father's civil rights action alleging he was denied due process when timber companies denied him public access to their private lands zoned for timber production. We dismiss.
Raffaelly may not prosecute this appeal as the representative of her father's estate because, as a non-lawyer, she may not bring an action on behalf of another party. See C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697-98 (9th Cir.1987) (explaining that a non-attorney "may appear in propria persona in his own behalf' but "has no authority to appear as an attorney for others"); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1654 (requiring parties to "plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel").
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.