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[DO NOT PUBLISH]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.
