Dawn M. White v. United States

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: June 8, 2023
• Docket: 22-13736
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit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