GARDNER v. SHERIFF

D. Maine

GARDNER v. SHERIFF

DecidedJune 11, 2021

Docket2:21-cv-00151

StatusUnknown

This text of GARDNER v. SHERIFF (GARDNER v. SHERIFF) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

GARDNER v. SHERIFF, (D. Me. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE

) MATTHEW GARDNER, ) ) Plaintiff ) ) v. ) No. 2:21-cv-00151-GZS ) ANDREW SHERIFF, ) ) Defendant )

ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

On June 9, 2021, Andrew Sheriff removed this forcible entry and detainer matter from state court. See Notice of Removal (ECF No. 1). Despite being the only named defendant in the matter, Sheriff filed a notice of removal signed by him and an individual named Mike R. Johannes. See id. at 3; Complaint for Forcible Entry and Detainer (ECF No. 1-1). Sheriff offered no explanation for including Johannes’s signature on the notice of removal, but he did reference a related case currently pending in this court (Sheriff et al. v. Gardner et al., 2:21-cv-00115-GZS) in which he and Johannes appear together as pro se plaintiffs. See Notice of Removal at 1-2. On June 10, 2021, Johannes filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis purportedly on Sheriff’s behalf; the application, however, is signed only by Johannes. See Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 4). Because Johannes does not purport to be a licensed attorney, he may not act on Sheriff’s behalf in this matter. See 28 U.S.C. § 1654 (“In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel . . . .” (emphasis added)); O’Diah v. Volkswagen of Amer., Inc., 91 F. App’x 159, 160 (1st Cir. 2004) (holding that section 1654 bars “a non-lawyer from representing anyone but himself”). For this reason, I DENY the application to proceed in forma pauperis, DIRECT that the Clerk’s Office promptly provide Sheriff with another application to proceed in forma pauperis, and DIRECT that, no later than June 25, 2021, Sheriff either file such an application – personally or through licensed counsel – or pay this court’s $402 filing fee, failing which I will recommend that this matter be remanded to state court.

NOTICE

A party may file objections to those specified portions of a magistrate judge’s report or proposed findings or recommended decisions entered pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) for which de novo review by the district court is sought, together with a supporting memorandum, within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. A responsive memorandum shall be filed within fourteen (14) days after the filing of the objection. Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the right to de novo review by the district court and to appeal the district court’s order.

Dated this 11th day of June, 2021.

/s/ John H. Rich III John H. Rich III United States Magistrate Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE

) MATTHEW GARDNER, ) ) Plaintiff ) ) v. ) No. 2:21-cv-00151-GZS ) ANDREW SHERIFF, ) ) Defendant )

ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

On June 9, 2021, Andrew Sheriff removed this forcible entry and detainer matter from state court. See Notice of Removal (ECF No. 1). Despite being the only named defendant in the matter, Sheriff filed a notice of removal signed by him and an individual named Mike R. Johannes. See id. at 3; Complaint for Forcible Entry and Detainer (ECF No. 1-1). Sheriff offered no explanation for including Johannes’s signature on the notice of removal, but he did reference a related case currently pending in this court (Sheriff et al. v. Gardner et al., 2:21-cv-00115-GZS) in which he and Johannes appear together as pro se plaintiffs. See Notice of Removal at 1-2. On June 10, 2021, Johannes filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis purportedly on Sheriff’s behalf; the application, however, is signed only by Johannes. See Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 4). Because Johannes does not purport to be a licensed attorney, he may not act on Sheriff’s behalf in this matter. See 28 U.S.C. § 1654 (“In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel . . . .” (emphasis added)); O’Diah v. Volkswagen of Amer., Inc., 91 F. App’x 159, 160 (1st Cir. 2004) (holding that section 1654 bars “a non-lawyer from representing anyone but himself”). For this reason, I DENY the application to proceed in forma pauperis, DIRECT that the Clerk’s Office promptly provide Sheriff with another application to proceed in forma pauperis, and DIRECT that, no later than June 25, 2021, Sheriff either file such an application – personally or through licensed counsel – or pay this court’s $402 filing fee, failing which I will recommend that this matter be remanded to state court.

NOTICE

A party may file objections to those specified portions of a magistrate judge’s report or proposed findings or recommended decisions entered pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) for which de novo review by the district court is sought, together with a supporting memorandum, within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. A responsive memorandum shall be filed within fourteen (14) days after the filing of the objection. Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the right to de novo review by the district court and to appeal the district court’s order.

Dated this 11th day of June, 2021.

/s/ John H. Rich III John H. Rich III United States Magistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

GARDNER v. SHERIFF, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gardner-v-sheriff-med-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack