OWENS v. STATE OF FLORIDA et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
RANDALL BOAZ OWENS
On behalf of JONATHAN CLEMENTS,
Plaintiff,
vs. 	Case No.: 3:26cv1910/MCR/ZCB
STATE OF FLORIDA, et al,
Defendants.
______________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Randall Boaz Owens, a Florida prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed
a 	civil 	rights 	complaint 	purportedly 	on 	behalf 	of 	another 	prisoner,
Jonathan Clements. (Doc. 1).1
Federal law authorizes 	parties in 	federal cases to 	“plead and
conduct their own cases personally or by counsel.” 	28 U.S.C. § 1654.
The right to appear pro se, however, is limited to those parties conducting
“their own cases” and does not apply to persons representing the interests
of others. 	See Franklin v. Garden State Life Ins., 462 F. App’x 928, 930
(11th Cir. 2012) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1654 and holding that a non-lawyer
1 Mr. Owens does not identify himself as Mr. Clements’ attorney, nor is
Mr. Owens listed as an attorney in the Florida Bar’s Attorney Directory.
Case 3:26-cv-01910-MCR-ZCB Document 7 Filed 03/19/26 Page 1 of 3

2
could not proceed pro se on behalf of an estate). Put simply, an individual
who is not a licensed attorney may not represent the legal interests of
another person in federal court.2 	For that reason, the complaint should
be dismissed without prejudice. 	See Grappel v. Carvalho, 847 F. App’x
698, 701 (11th Cir. 2021) (explaining that to the extent the plaintiff, a
non-attorney, sought to represent the legal interests of her son, the
district court should have dismissed those claims without prejudice); see
also 	FuQua 	v. 	Massey, 	615 	F. 	App’x 	611, 	612-13 	(11th 	Cir. 	2015)
(affirming dismissal because a non-attorney parent cannot represent her
minor child in a federal court action). 	Accordingly, it is respectfully
RECOMMENDED that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice
and that the Clerk of Court be directed to close this case.
2 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit “an incompetent person
who does not have a duly appointed representative” to “sue by a next
friend,” see Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2), but “next friend” capacity does not
authorize a non-lawyer to appear pro se on another person’s behalf. 	See
Whitehurst 	v. 	Wal-Mart, 	306 	F. 	App’x 	446, 	449 	(11th 	Cir. 	2008)
(explaining that Rule 17(c) does not permit a non-lawyer to represent
another person in federal court). If Mr. Owens wishes to file a civil rights
complaint as Mr. Clements’ “next friend” under Rule 17(c)(2), then he
must do so through a lawyer.
Case 3:26-cv-01910-MCR-ZCB Document 7 Filed 03/19/26 Page 2 of 3

3
At Pensacola, Florida this 19th day of March 2026.
/s/ Zachary C. Bolitho
Zachary C. Bolitho
United States Magistrate Judge
Notice to the Parties
Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must
be 	filed 	within 	fourteen 	days 	of 	the 	date 	of 	this 	Report 	and
Recommendation. 	Any 	different 	deadline 	that 	may 	appear 	on 	the
electronic docket is for the Court’s internal use only and does not
control. 	An objecting party must serve a copy of the objections on all
other parties. 	A party who fails to object to the magistrate judge’s
findings or recommendations contained in a report and recommendation
waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on
unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. 	See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28
U.S.C. § 636.
Case 3:26-cv-01910-MCR-ZCB Document 7 Filed 03/19/26 Page 3 of 3