
USCA1 Opinion

	




        July 21, 1992           [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                                 ____________________        No. 92-1098                                   ETHAN H., ET AL.,                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,                                          v.                           STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL.,                                Defendants, Appellees.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE                [Hon. Martin F. Loughlin, Senior U.S. District Judge]                                          __________________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                 Breyer, Chief Judge,                                         ___________                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,                                     ____________________                               and Cyr, Circuit Judge.                                        _____________                                 ____________________            Judith J. Horsley on brief pro se.            _________________            John P.  Arnold, Attorney  General, and Stephen  J. Judge,  Senior            _______________                         _________________        Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellees.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                      Per Curiam.  This  is an appeal from  the dismissal                      __________            of an  action brought under 42 U.S.C.   1983.  Appellant, Dr.            Judith J. Horsley, filed a complaint on behalf of herself and            her  minor  son,  Ethan.    She  attacked  state  child abuse            proceedings, alleging  that the  State of New  Hampshire, the            New Hampshire Division for Children and Youth Services (DCYS)            and  its employees, two state judges, and a guardian ad litem            conspired to deprive appellants  of various federal and state            rights.   After the dismissal  of her complaint,  Dr. Horsley            filed  a notice of appeal,  signed only by  herself, in which            she purported to  appeal on behalf of herself and  Ethan.  In            an order,  we requested  the parties  to brief  the threshold            question  whether  Dr. Horsley  could  represent  her son  on            appeal.                      We now hold that Dr. Judith Horsley, acting pro se,                                                                  ___ __            may not  represent her son in  this appeal.  See  28 U.S.C.                                                           ___            1654 ("the  parties  may plead  and conduct  their own  cases            personally  or  by  counsel")  (emphasis  added).    We  have            __________      ___________            interpreted  this   statute  as  barring  a  non-lawyer  from            representing  anyone  else  but  himself  or  herself.    See                                                                      ___            Herrera-Venegas v. Sanchez-Rivera, 681  F.2d 41, 42 (1st Cir.            _______________    ______________            1982); see  also Lewis  v. Lenc-Smith Manufacturing  Co., 784                   ___  ____ _____     _____________________________            F.2d 829, 830-31 (7th Cir. 1986) (per curiam) (individual may            only appear  on appeal pro  se or  through counsel;  striking                                   ___  __            appearance  of non-lawyer); Georgiades v. Martin-Trigona, 729                                        __________    ______________                                         -2-            F.2d  831, 834  & n.7  (D.C. Cir.  1984) (non-lawyer  may not            appear on behalf of others on appeal).                      We  also note  that the  same rule  holds true  for            district  court  proceedings.   See  Osei-Afriyie v.  Medical                                            ___  ____________     _______            College of Pennsylvania, 937 F.2d  876, 882-83 (3d Cir. 1991)            _______________________            (non-lawyer parent,  appearing pro se, may  not represent his                                           ___ __            child  in federal  court  trial); Cheung  v. Youth  Orchestra                                              ______     ________________            Foundation of Buffalo, 906  F.2d 59, 61-62 (2d Cir.  1990) (a            _____________________            non-attorney  parent  must  be  represented  by counsel  when            bringing  an  action on  behalf of  his  or her  child; court            remanded case  to district  court to allow  parent to  retain            lawyer or  request appointment of counsel  for child); Meeker                                                                   ______            v. Kercher, 782 F.2d  153, 154 (10th Cir. 1986)  (per curiam)               _______            (court  of  appeals  upheld   district  court's  ruling  that            although parent  had the right  to represent himself,  he did            not have the right to represent his children).  Thus, Ethan's            claims are not before us on appeal.                      As for Dr. Horsley's allegations, we have carefully            reviewed the record and  the briefs on appeal, and  we affirm            the  district court's  judgment for  essentially the  reasons            stated in  the magistrate judge's report  and recommendation.            The district court judge adopted the report when it dismissed            the  complaint.   We  only  add  that Dr.  Horsley's  amended            complaint also fails to  state a claim upon which  relief may            be  granted.    The only  named  defendant,  DCYS,  is not  a                                         -3-            "person" within the meaning of   1983.  See  Will v. Michigan                                                    ___  ____    ________            Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 70-71 (1989).            _____________________                      Thus, we affirm the judgment of the district court.                               ______            Because we have disposed of the appeal on the merits, we need            not address the second issue raised by Dr. Horsley on appeal.                                         -4-
