LATIMORE v. GABRIEL

M.D. Georgia

LATIMORE v. GABRIEL

DecidedDecember 4, 2024

Docket5:24-cv-00391

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

LATIMORE v. GABRIEL, (M.D. Ga. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION JOSEPH LATIMORE, JR., Power of Attorney, for use and benefit of JOE L. LATIMORE, SR., Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:24-cv-00391-TES v. Sheriff DAVID GABRIEL, et al., Defendants.

ORDER

In this action, Plaintiff Joseph Latimore purports to seek an “Immediate Emergency Injunction,” on behalf of his father, Joe Lewis Latimore, who is an “elderly” person with disabilities. [Doc. 1, p. 1 (capitalization altered)]. It appears Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief based on bankruptcy proceedings related to the Chapter 13 Trustee, Camille Hope. [Id.]. However, under Georgia law, it is unlawful for any person other than a licensed attorney to practice law in this state. O.C.G.A. § 15-19-51(b). That includes bringing actions on behalf of other individuals. See 28 U.S.C. § 1654 (allowing individuals to represent only themselves pro se); Laguille-Brugman v. United States, No. 23-12064, 2023 WL 8643684, at *2 (11th Cir. Dec. 14, 2023) (“Although a party may represent herself pro se, a non-attorney may not represent other parties in federal court.”). Plaintiff’s power of attorney does not change the rules, either. Hand v. Bibeault, 400 F. App’x 526, 528

(11th Cir. 2010). Indeed, Plaintiff may represent his father’s interests as his “representative,” but not as his legal counsel. Id.; see also Toenniges v. Steed, 739 S.E.2d 94, 95 (2013).

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to RETAIN counsel to represent his father’s legal interests within 10 days of this Order. Failure to follow this instruction with result in the dismissal of the pending Motion for Injunctive Relief. See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 41(b); Brown v. Tallahassee Police Dep’t, 205 F. App’x 802, 802 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (first citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); and then citing Lopez v. Aransas Cnty. Indep. Sch. Dist., 570 F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 1978)) (“The [C]ourt may dismiss an action sua sponte under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute or failure to obey a court order.”).

SO ORDERED, this 4th day of December, 2024. S/ Tilman E. Self, III TILMAN E. SELF, III, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION JOSEPH LATIMORE, JR., Power of Attorney, for use and benefit of JOE L. LATIMORE, SR., Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:24-cv-00391-TES v. Sheriff DAVID GABRIEL, et al., Defendants.

ORDER

In this action, Plaintiff Joseph Latimore purports to seek an “Immediate Emergency Injunction,” on behalf of his father, Joe Lewis Latimore, who is an “elderly” person with disabilities. [Doc. 1, p. 1 (capitalization altered)]. It appears Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief based on bankruptcy proceedings related to the Chapter 13 Trustee, Camille Hope. [Id.]. However, under Georgia law, it is unlawful for any person other than a licensed attorney to practice law in this state. O.C.G.A. § 15-19-51(b). That includes bringing actions on behalf of other individuals. See 28 U.S.C. § 1654 (allowing individuals to represent only themselves pro se); Laguille-Brugman v. United States, No. 23-12064, 2023 WL 8643684, at *2 (11th Cir. Dec. 14, 2023) (“Although a party may represent herself pro se, a non-attorney may not represent other parties in federal court.”). Plaintiff’s power of attorney does not change the rules, either. Hand v. Bibeault, 400 F. App’x 526, 528

(11th Cir. 2010). Indeed, Plaintiff may represent his father’s interests as his “representative,” but not as his legal counsel. Id.; see also Toenniges v. Steed, 739 S.E.2d 94, 95 (2013).

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to RETAIN counsel to represent his father’s legal interests within 10 days of this Order. Failure to follow this instruction with result in the dismissal of the pending Motion for Injunctive Relief. See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 41(b); Brown v. Tallahassee Police Dep’t, 205 F. App’x 802, 802 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (first citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); and then citing Lopez v. Aransas Cnty. Indep. Sch. Dist., 570 F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 1978)) (“The [C]ourt may dismiss an action sua sponte under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute or failure to obey a court order.”).

SO ORDERED, this 4th day of December, 2024. S/ Tilman E. Self, III TILMAN E. SELF, III, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

LATIMORE v. GABRIEL, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/latimore-v-gabriel-gamd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack