Loper v. Muny Football League Organization et al, No. 1:2016cv02358 - Document 3 (N.D. Ohio 2016)
Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing this action without prejudice for lack of representation. The Court further certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Judge Donald C. Nugent 10/31/16(C,KA)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Loper v. Muny Football League Organization et al Doc. 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Latasha Loper, Plaintiff, v. The Muny League Football Organization, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 1:16 CV 2358 JUDGE DONALD C. NUGENT MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Latasha Loper, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this federal civil rights action against the Muny League Football Organization and the City of Cleveland Division of Recreation on behalf of her minor child. She alleges the Defendants have discriminated against her child on the basis of a disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in connection with playing opportunities that have been afforded him in Muny League football. She seeks damages on behalf of her child for “mental anguish and discrimination,” as well as an order that he receive his trophy and be allowed to play, and that Director Dunn, Coach Hardaway, Officer Smitty, and Tim Wells be removed and reprimanded. Although 28 U.S.C. §1654 provides that “[i]n all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel,” that statute does not permit plaintiffs to appear pro se when interests other than their own are at stake. Shepherd v. Wellman, 313 F.3d 963, 970 (6th Cir.2002) (citing Iannoccone v. Law, 142 F.3d 553, 558 (2nd Cir.1998)). Thus, parents cannot appear pro se on behalf of their minor children because a minor’s personal cause of Dockets.Justia.com action is his or her own and does not belong to the parent or representative. Shepherd, 313 F.3d at 970-971 (citing Cheung v. Youth Orch. Foundation of Buffalo, Inc., 906 F.2d 59, 61 (6th Cir.1990)). Thus, the Plaintiff cannot represent her minor child in this action under the ADA. Conclusion Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice for lack of representation. The Court further certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Donald C. Nugent DONALD C. NUGENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: __10/31/16______ -2-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
