Free Order on Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis - District Court of California - California

Case 3:08-cv-00450-IEG-WMC

Document 8

Filed 06/20/2008

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 vs. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, an entity; UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, a government entity; IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, a government entity; KAREN HEWITT, in her individual capacity and as United States Attorney for the Southern District of California; BARBARA MAJOR, in her individual and former capacity of Assistant United States Attorney; MICHAEL FOSTER, in his individual and capacity as United States Customs Agent; WILLIAM A. HALL, in his individual and capacity as Assistant United States Attorney; and DOES 1 through 20 inclusive, Defendants. Plaintiff Paul Blazevich has filed a complaint alleging multiple constitutional claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Federal Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) arising out of his conviction and sentence in this Court in Case No. 99cr471. Plaintiff moves the Court to proceed in forma pauperis. Upon review, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff Paul Blazevich's motion to proceed in this case in forma pauperis. The Clerk is directed to issue summons on the Complaint. Although the Complaint purports to also be filed on behalf of E. Blazevich, Ms. Blazevich -108cv450

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL J. BLAZEVICH and E. BLAZEVICH, Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 08cv450-IEG(WMc) Order Granting Plaintiff Paul Blazevich's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis; Directing Clerk to Issue Summons; Sua Sponte Dismissing Claims of E. Blazevich; Granting Ex Parte Applications to Set Response Deadline [Doc. Nos. 6 and 7]

Case 3:08-cv-00450-IEG-WMC

Document 8

Filed 06/20/2008

Page 2 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

neither personally signed the complaint as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a) nor moved to proceed in forma pauperis. Pro se litigants have no authority to represent anyone other than

themselves; therefore, they lack the representative capacity to file motions and other documents on behalf of other prisoners. See Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir.1997) ("[A] non-lawyer `has no authority to appear as an attorney for others than himself.'" (quoting Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir.1987)).
Therefore, the claims of E. Blazevich are DISMISSED without prejudice. Defendants have filed ex parte applications seeking an order setting a date for a response to the Complaint. These applications are GRANTED. Defendants shall have 90 days from the date this order is filed to answer, plead, or otherwise respond to the Complaint. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 20, 2008 IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge United States District Court

-2-

08cv450