Opinion
2:21-cv-774
05-11-2022
MARTIN ROBINSON, Plaintiff, v. LONNIE BUTLER, et al., Defendants.
Michael R. Merz, Magistrate Judge.
ORDER
SARAH D. MORRISON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Plaintiff Martin Robinson objects (ECF No. 81) to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (R&R, ECF No. 78). The Magistrate Judge recommends the Court grant Defendants Annette Chambers, Stuart Hudson, and State of Ohio's Motion to Strike the Complaint (ECF No. 72). He further recommends this case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute because Plaintiff has not personally signed the Complaint.
Defendants move to strike the Complaint because it has not been signed by Plaintiff. (ECF No. 72, PagelD 372-73.) A complaint filed in federal court must be signed by an attorney of record or personally by a party who is unrepresented by counsel. Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(a). Here, Plaintiff is unrepresented. Although Plaintiff has requested the Court appoint counsel for him, the Court cannot because Congress has not appropriated sufficient funds for paying attorneys in these types of cases and the Court will not compel an attorney to serve without payment. (R&R, PageID 413, citing Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court, S.D. Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 301-03 (1989).)
Because he is proceeding without counsel, Plaintiff was required to sign the Complaint. But he failed to do so - even after repeated admonishments. The purported power of attorney signature is insufficient. McCoy v. Ohio, 2020 WL 7480629, at *3 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 18, 2020). The Court, then, must strike the Complaint. Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(a) (“The court must strike an unsigned paper unless the omission is promptly corrected after being called to the attorney's or party's attention.”).
For these reasons, this case must be dismissed for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's R&R (ECF No. 78) and OVERRULES Plaintiff's Objections (ECF No. 81). Defendants' Motion to Strike (ECF No. 72) is GRANTED. The case is DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute. The Court CERTIFIES that any appeal would be frivolous and not taken in good faith and, therefore, DENIES Plaintiff in forma pauperis status on appeal.
Defendant Lonnie Butler's pending Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 79) is DENIED AS MOOT. Plaintiff's remaining Objections (ECF No. 74) are OVERRULED. The Clerk shall terminate this case from the Court's docket.
The Court need not consider the merits of these Objections because, regardless of their substance, the Complaint must be dismissed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11.
IT IS SO ORDERED.