Court Opinion

ID: 9400653
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-08 19:01:10.808673+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:47.006648
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-13736    Document: 17-1     Date Filed: 06/08/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-13736
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       DAWN M. WHITE,
       PATRICK J. WHITE,
                                                   Plaintiﬀs-Appellants,
       versus
       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                   Defendant-Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Middle District of Alabama
                  D.C. Docket No. 2:21-cv-00667-RAH-CWB
USCA11 Case: 22-13736      Document: 17-1       Date Filed: 06/08/2023     Page: 2 of 3

       2                       Opinion of the Court                  22-13736

                            ____________________

       Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and WILSON and LUCK, Cir-
       cuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Patrick White, as purported pro se “representative” of his
       wife, Dawn, appeals the dismissal of her amended complaint alleg-
       ing medical malpractice under the Federal Tort Claims Act com-
       mitted at the Maxwell Air Force Base. The district court ruled that
       Patrick could not represent Dawn without being admitted to prac-
       tice law. And the district court dismissed Dawn’s complaint be-
       cause, even though she appeared to have signed it, her complaint
       was untimely. Because Patrick also cannot represent his wife on
       appeal, we dismiss this appeal.
               Patrick, who is not an attorney, purported to sue on behalf
       of his wife and to represent her legal interests. Federal law allows
       parties in federal cases to “plead and conduct their own cases per-
       sonally or by counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1654. But the right to appear pro
       se extends to parties conducting “their own cases,” not to persons
       representing the interests of others. See Devine v. Indian River Cnty.
       Sch. Bd., 121 F.3d 576, 581 (11th Cir. 1997) (determining that, while
       Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c) allows a parent to sue on behalf of their minor
       child, the rule does not allow a non-attorney parent to function as
       legal counsel for the child), overruled in part on other grounds by Win-
       kelman ex rel. Winkelman v. Parma City Sch. Dist., 550 U.S. 516, 535
       (2007).
USCA11 Case: 22-13736      Document: 17-1      Date Filed: 06/08/2023     Page: 3 of 3

       22-13736               Opinion of the Court                          3

              We cannot entertain this appeal. Because Patrick was not
       permitted to represent Dawn’s legal interests and disclaimed any
       intent to sue on his own behalf, he could not participate in the ac-
       tion. See 28 U.S.C. § 1654; Devine, 121 F.3d at 581. Although Dawn
       and Patrick both signed the notice of appeal, see Fed. R. App. P.
       3(c)(1)(A), (c)(2), the unsigned opening brief states that it was sub-
       mitted only by Patrick as Dawn’s “Pro Se Representative” and reit-
       erates that he “has no right to a claim nor is it his intent to be rec-
       ognized” as a party. So we cannot consider the legal arguments he
       seeks to raise on her behalf.
              We DISMISS this appeal.