FEELEY v. HOKAMSON ( 2023 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE STEVEN FEELEY, ) ) Plaintiff1 ) ) v. ) No. 2:23-cv-00322-JDL ) BRADLEY HOKAMSON et al., ) ) Defendants ) RECOMMENDED DISMISSAL Steven Feeley filed a pro se complaint alleging various violations of his civil rights by two police officers. See ECF No. 1. The Court granted Feeley’s request to proceed in forma pauperis, see ECF No. 4, and, on August 29, 2023, I entered the following order: ORDER. Because the Court granted the Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis, see ECF No. 4, his complaint is now before me for preliminary review in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Plaintiff attached a copy of a criminal summons to his complaint that is not fully legible. See ECF No. 1-1 at 3. Because the summons appears to be critical to understanding the claim(s) that the Plaintiff is attempting to assert, he is hereby ORDERED to file a fully legible copy of the summons by September 12, 2023, failing which his case may be subject to dismissal. ECF No. 5. The Clerk’s Office mailed a copy of my order to Feeley, but he did not file a legible copy of the summons by the deadline nor has he done so since then. 1 Feeley also purports to bring this lawsuit on behalf of an individual named Steven Feeley Jr. (presumably his son). See ECF No. 1. But because Feeley is not an attorney, he cannot bring claims on behalf of his child. See, e.g., Pineda v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., No. 16-12229-WGY, 2016 WL 6661143, at *2 & n.2 (D. Mass. Nov. 9, 2019) (“In a civil rights action, parents cannot appear pro se on behalf of their minor children because a minor’s personal cause of action is her own and does not belong to her parent or representative.” (cleaned up)). Feeley’s failure to comply with my order justifies the dismissal of his complaint without prejudice. See, e.g., Lazore v. Harrigan, No. 1:21-cv-00239-GZS, 2021 WL 4761985, at *1-2 (D. Me. Oct. 11, 2021) (rec. dec.) (dismissing a pro se plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice after she failed to comply with the Court’s order), aff’d, 2021 WL 5182663 (D. Me. Nov. 8, 2021); see also Diaz-Santos v. Dep’t of Educ., 108 F. App’x 638, 640 (1st Cir. 2004) (“A district court’s inherent powers to sanction parties for litigation abuses include the power to act sua sponte to dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute.”). Feeley’s status as an unrepresented litigant does not excuse his failure to comply with my order. See Elwell v. South Portland Police, No. 2:21-cv-00160-LEW, 2021 WL 5066106, at *1 (D. Me. Oct. 31, 2021) (rec. dec.) (“While pro se litigants are accorded a certain degree of latitude, a party’s pro se status does not excuse him from complying with this Court’s orders . . . .” (cleaned up)), aff’d, ECF No. 9 (D. Me. Dec. 10, 2021). Accordingly, I recommend that the Court DISMISS Feeley’s complaint without prejudice. NOTICE In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), a party may serve and file an objection to this order within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the right to review by the District Court and to any further appeal of this order. Dated: September 19, 2023 /s/ Karen Frink Wolf United States Magistrate Judge