FECHTER v. Diane S. Goebel;  Bonnie Supin;  Marcie Cherek;  Dawn Hardy;  State of Nevada;  Dan Bixler;  Fred Fisher;  David Dunn;  Cheryl Levin;  Laurel Swetnam;  Jerry Carlin, et al., Defendants-Appellees. (1995)

The Fechters appeal pro se the district court's dismissal of their civil rights complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.   The plaintiffs are Thor Fechter, his parents, Harry and Tordis Fechter, and his daughter, Victoria Fechter.   They brought this suit claiming that the twenty-six defendants, various judges, social workers, doctors, lawyers, and state officials, prevented the adult plaintiffs from associating with Victoria in deprivation of their constitutionally protected liberty interests.

We discuss the merits of the Fechters' appeal in a separate memorandum disposition filed concurrently with this opinion.   We issue this opinion separately to decide whether appellants Thor, Harry, and Tordis Fechter, non-attorneys, may represent Victoria Fechter on appeal.

A litigant in federal court has a right to act as his or her own counsel.   See 28 U.S.C. § 1654 (“In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel․”).  A non-attorney, however, “has no authority to appear as an attorney for others․”  C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir.1987).   Accordingly, we have held that corporations and other unincorporated associations must appear in court through an attorney.   See id. at 697-98;  Licht v. America West Airlines, 40 F.3d 1058, 1059 (9th Cir.1994).   We have not yet decided, however, whether a non-attorney parent may bring a pro se action on behalf of his or her minor child.

Every circuit which has considered the issue has held that a non-attorney parent must be represented by counsel in bringing an action on behalf of his or her minor child.   See Osei-Afriyie v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, 937 F.2d 876, 882-883 (3rd Cir.1991);  Cheung v. Youth Orchestra Found. of Buffalo, Inc., 906 F.2d 59, 61 (2d Cir.1990) (“The choice to appear pro se is not a true choice for minors who under state law, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 17(b), cannot determine their own legal actions.”);  Meeker v. Kercher, 782 F.2d 153, 154 (10th Cir.1986) (“We hold that under Fed.R.Civ.P. 17(c) and 28 U.S.C. § 1654, a minor child cannot bring suit through a parent acting as next friend if the parent is not represented by an attorney.”)  (per curiam).

We agree with our sister circuits and hold that under Fed.R.Civ.P. 17(c) and 28 U.S.C. § 1654, a minor child cannot bring suit through a parent if the parent is not represented by an attorney.   As the Second Circuit reasoned:

[i]t goes without saying that it is not in the interests of minors or incompetents that they be represented by non-attorneys.   Where they have claims that require adjudication, they are entitled to trained legal assistance so their rights may be fully protected.   There is nothing in the guardian-minor relationship that suggests that the minor's interests would be furthered by representation by the non-attorney guardian.

Cheung, 906 F.2d at 61.   Therefore, we dismiss the appeal as to Victoria Fechter on the ground that the adult Fechters, as non-attorneys, may not bring suit on her behalf.

DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM: