Yellen v. Biden

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

MIKE YELLEN, ET AL., CIV. NO. 25-00002 JAO-BMK Plaintiffs, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO vs. DISMISS NONCOMPLIANT PLAINTIFFS (ECF NO. 282) JOE BIDEN, ET AL., Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS NONCOMPLIANT PLAINTIFFS (ECF NO. 282) Before the Court are Magistrate Judge Kurren’s Findings and Recommendation to Dismiss Noncompliant Plaintiffs (“F&R”), ECF No. 282, and Plaintiff Mike Yellen’s Response to This Court’s Finding and Recommendations to Dismiss Noncomplaint [sic] Plaintiffs, ECF No. 283, which the Court construes as objections to the F&R (“Objections”). For the following reasons, the Court rejects Plaintiff Yellen’s Objections and ADOPTS the F&R. I. BACKGROUND Pro se Plaintiffs filed the operative amended complaint in this case (“FAC”) on February 9, 2025. Shortly thereafter, the Court noted that most Plaintiffs did not provide the Court with any means of transmitting and serving documents to them and ordered them to file, by February 28, either: (1) a HID Form 12 entitled “Pro Se (Non-Prisoner) Consent to Receive Documents and Notices of Electronic Filing by Email” or (2) Notice of Address/Email. See ECF No. 229. The Court cautioned that failure to comply with the Court’s order could result in the Court imposing sanctions, including dismissal of the case. See id. Numerous Plaintiffs did not comply with the Court’s order (“Noncompliant Plaintiffs”).1 On April 7, 2025, Magistrate Judge Kurren issued the F&R, recommending that the Court dismiss the Noncompliant Plaintiffs for failure to comply with the Court’s order. ECF No. 282. The following day, Plaintiff Yellen filed his Objection. The Court decides this matter without a hearing. See LR7.1(d).

II. LEGAL STANDARDS When a party objects to a magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations, the district court must review de novo those portions to which the objections are made and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc)

1 These Plaintiffs are identified on the docket as: Bronson DeKneff, Caleb Sollars, Cesar Escobar, Diane Best, Gustave Link, James T. Williams, Jasmine Y.

Arango, Justin C. Leslie, Karl Magalhaes, Kendall L. Keller, Laurie Shannon Miller (Skimmerhorn), Vanessa Browne, Melissa A. Fassett, Steve Malcolm, Michelle E. Williams, Edward Burke, Holly Sheldon-Lee, Hesse A. Papach, Jaleen Borom, Joshua Gandy, Melisa Overcash, Laurie Miller, Lori Havey, Marilya Tate, Sheri Harrey, Sophia Hart, Tracy Curtis, Suzanne Shelton, Greg Jones, Jessica Montana, Paul Wilderson, Tracy Juris, and Bradley S. White. (“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise. . . . Neither the Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates Act] requires a district judge to review, de novo, finding and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.”).

III. DISCUSSION In his Objection to the F&R, Plaintiff Mike Yellen states that he “understands this Court’s reasoning, but request[s] that the Court not dismiss the Plaintiffs.” ECF No. 283 at 1. Yellen then offers some of the email and mailing addresses for certain Noncompliant Plaintiffs, and requests “14 days to provide this Court with all the mailing addresses of all the named Plaintiffs in this motion.” Id. at 3.

As a preliminary matter, the Court construes the Objection as being brought by Yellen only. The Court has repeatedly warned Yellen that he is prohibited from representing anyone other than himself in this action. See ECF Nos. 150, 227. “While a non-attorney may appear pro se on his own behalf, he has no authority to appear as an attorney for others than himself.” Johns v. Cnty. of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874 (9th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted); see also LR81.1(a) (“Those proceeding without an attorney, i.e., ‘pro se’ or ‘in propria persona,’ must appear personally on behalf of themselves only and may not delegate that duty to another who is not authorized to practice in this court. Pro se litigants shall abide by all local, federal, and other applicable rules and/or statutes.”). There is no indication that Yellen is a licensed attorney, much less one authorized to practice in this Court. Yellen is therefore permitted to bring claims and file motions and pleadings on his own behalf, but not on behalf of other Plaintiffs. In other words, Yellen cannot respond to the Court’s order by supplying email and mailing addresses at the behest of other Plaintiffs.2 Setting that aside, Yellen does not actually contest any specific portion of the F&R or otherwise explain or provide any authority for why this Court should not adopt the F&R. See LR74.1(a) (“The objection must specifically designate the portions of the magistrate judge’s order or findings and recommendations to which the party is objecting and the basis of the objection.”). Yellen instead admits that he “understands this Court’s reasoning” but nonetheless “requests that the Court not dismiss the Plaintiffs.” See ECF No. 283 at 1. Absent specific objections, the Court is not required to conduct de novo review. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. Notwithstanding the lack of any particular objections, the Court

2 In Hawai‘i, the unauthorized practice of law is a misdemeanor. See Haw. Rev. Stat. § 605-17. If Yellen continues to represent other Plaintiffs in this matter, the Court may issue an order to show cause why he should not be personally sanctioned. See Malinay v. Nishimura, 2013 WL 4240460, at *2 (D. Haw. Aug.

14, 2013).

PagelD.3502 has considered the F&R and the records in this case, finds no reason to reject or modify Judge Kurren’s F&R, and therefore adopts the F&R in full.

IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the Court ADOPTS the F&R, ECF No. 282, and DISMISSES the Noncompliant Plaintiffs listed in footnote 1.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, April 24, 2025.

qyeaue Py, « a @,» hfe bg / ae J ee % Jill A. Otake > & United States District Judge Qanss CIV. NO. 25-00002 JAO-BMK, Yellen, et al. v. Joe Biden, et al.; ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS NONCOMPLIANT PLAINTIFFS (ECF NO. 282)