PENKUL v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER

2015 | Cited 0 times | D. Maine | May 22, 2015

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MAINE

LINDA PENKUL o/b/o ROSALINA ) PENKUL, ) Plaintiff ) v. ) No. 2:14-cv-156-GZS CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting ) Commissioner of Social Security, ) Defendant )

HER ADULT DAUGHTER

In his order dated December 29, 2014, Judge Singal, the presiding judge in this case, ordered Linda Penkul, who has presented herself throughout this action as representing her adult daughter, Rosalina Penkul, to demonstrate that she has authority to represent Rosalina Penkul g the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 34) at 2. (ECF

No. 35), which the court has treated as a motion for leave to represent Rosalina Penkul, her adult daughter, the real party in interest in this action. 1 motion for leave to represent her adult daughter is denied.

1 Since filing this document, Linda Penkul has also file a letter conveying to the court copies of documents issued by Moti monies to Plaintiff (ECF No. 40), to which the defendant filed an opposition (ECF No. 41) program before the Overpayment Wai Case 2:14-cv-00156-GZS Document 46 Filed 05/22/15 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 313

Discussion In the Motion, Linda Penkul represents that Rosalina Penkul cannot afford to hire an aid programs are not available and, or unwilling to represent her in this matter pro se], of her daughter, that she is in training to become an attorney (although not, apparently, yet

Id. at 1-2. Without citation to authority, she states

[her daughter] the right to representation from this authorized agent at this stage of the procedures would not only Id. at 3.

Unfortunately, allowing Linda Penkul to represent her adult daughter in this action is the act that would be unlawful. The legal principle that a parent who is not a licensed attorney may not represent her child, whether a minor or an adult, in a civil action in federal court has long been recognized in this court, see, e.g., Austin v. Town of Dexter, 552 F.Supp.2d 38, 39 (D. Me. 2008), and by binding precedents from the First Circuit Court of Appeals, e.g., Am., Inc. , 160, 2004 WL 67331 at **1 (1st Cir. 2004). None of the reasons

proffered by Linda Penkul allows this, or any other federal court, to override that principle. See, e.g., Clauden v. Commissioner of Soc. Sec., No. 4:10CV00034, 2011 WL 2003445 at *1 (W.D. of circuit courts of appeal that had held that non- attorney parents may not litigate the claims of their minor children in court). The same is true for parents of adult children. E.g., Hickey v. Wellesley School Comm., 14 F.3d 44 (table), 1993 WL 527964 at *2 n.1 (1st Cir. Dec. 21, 1993) (adult child may not be represented by parent).

Linda Penkul leave to represent her adult daughter, these two later motions, ECF Nos. 41 & 43, are ordered STRICKEN.

Conclusion DENIED. I recommend that, if Rosalina does not appear pro se and no attorney enters an appearance on her behalf within 30 days of the date of this decision, an order to show cause issue regarding why this action should not be dismissed.

Dated this 22 nd

day of May, 2015.

/s/ John H. Rich III John H. Rich III United States Magistrate Judge

Back to top