a non-attorney parent must be represented by counsel in bringing an action on behalf of his or her child in federal court
How later courts described this case
- a non-attorney parent must be represented by counsel in bringing an action on behalf of his or her child in federal court
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------X LONG ISLAND OFFICE
ADRIENNE BROWN, P.D., S.D., D.B.,
Plaintiffs, For Online Publication Only
ORDER
-against- 20-CV-3342 (JMA)(AYS)
SUFFOLK COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT,
THIRD PRECINCT, ET AL.,
Defendants.
--------------------------------------------------------X
AZRACK, United States District Judge:
Before the Court is the in forma pauperis application filed by pro se plaintiff Adrienne
Brown (“Plaintiff”).1 For the reasons that follow, the application to proceed in forma pauperis is
- ----------
denied without prejudice and with leave to renew upon completion of the AO 239 Long Form in
forma pauperis application (“Long Form”) attached to this Order. Alternatively, Plaintiff may
remit the $400.00 filing fee.
Plaintiff has not answered all of the questions on the form. For example, Plaintiff left
blank the question that asks for the name and address of Plaintiff’s employer yet Plaintiff reports
receiving monthly wages in the sum of $836.00. (ECF No. 2 at ¶ 2.) In addition, Plaintiff
1 Plaintiff has included the full names of three other individuals as plaintiffs in the caption of her complaint. These
individuals appear to be Plaintiff’s minor children. The Clerk of the Court has restricted public access to the
complaint because Plaintiff did not comply with the requirements of the E-Government Act of 2004 which limits the
identification of minors in public filings to their initials. It is well-established that a non-lawyer parent may not bring
civil rights claims on behalf of minor children in federal court. See Cheung v. Youth Orchestra Found. of Buffalo,
Inc., 906 F.2d 59, 61 (2d Cir. 1990) (a non-attorney parent must be represented by counsel in bringing an action on
behalf of his or her child in federal court). The Court has considered whether the appointment of counsel is warranted
under the circumstances presented here. Because there is no right to counsel in a civil case, upon review of the
substance of the complaint, the Court declines to appoint counsel for Plaintiff’s children. Accordingly, any claims
asserted on behalf of Plaintiff’s children are dismissed without prejudice. See Mills v. Fischer, 09-CV-0966A, 2010
WL 364457, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 1, 2010) (denying appointment of counsel for pro se minor in Section 1983 suit
where the claims raised in the complaint were “not likely to be of substance.”); see also Schoon v. Berlin, 07-CV-
2900, 2011 WL 1085274, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2011) (denying appointment of counsel and dismissing all claims
brought on behalf of child without prejudice where the complaint had “provide[d] insufficient indicia that the claims
[we]re likely to be meritorious”).
responded that she receives monthly “disability payments” and “food stamps” but does not include
the amounts that she receives. (Id. at ¶ 3.) Nor does Plaintiff include the amounts of the monthly
expenses she reports for her “light bill, water bill, [and] cable bill.” (Id. at ¶ 6.) Similarly,
although Plaintiff reports credit card debt, she does not include the amount owed. Additionally,
although Plaintiff includes a Post Office box as her address of record and a telephone number, she
does not include any monthly expenses associated therewith.
Given that the responses provided by Plaintiff raise more questions than they answer,
Plaintiff’s application is denied without prejudice and with leave to renew upon completion of the
long form application enclosed with this Order within twenty-one (21) days from the date of this
Order. Alternatively, Plaintiff may remit the $400.00 filing fee. Plaintiff is warned that her
failure to timely comply with this Order may lead to the dismissal of the complaint without
prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order
would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose
- ----------
of any appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of Court
shall mail a copy of this Order to the plaintiff at her address of record.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 3, 2020
Central Islip, New York
/s/ (JMA)
JOAN M. AZRACK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2