ALLSOT
v.
LATIF
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A pro se parent filed suit on behalf of his minor child against Naseem Latif. The court held that non-lawyer parents cannot represent children in federal court and gave plaintiff until August 5, 2025 to retain counsel or face dismissal.
A non-lawyer parent has no right to represent a child in an action in the child's name. The court will not permit such pro se representation by a parent without attorney counsel.
“a non-lawyer parent has no right to represent a child in an action in the child's name.”
Establishes the core legal principle that parents without legal training cannot serve as pro se representatives for their minor children in federal court.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePeter J. Allsot filed a civil action in the Middle District of Florida on behalf of his minor child, B.P.L.A., proceeding pro se (representing himself…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
PETER J. ALLSOT, as next friend of his minor child B.P.L.A., Plaintiff, v.
NASEEM LATIF, Defendant,
Case No.: 5:25-cv-00395-MMH-PRL
ORDER
Plaintiff Peter J. Allsot, who is proceeding pro se, has filed this action on behalf of his minor child. [fn 1] However, it is well-settled that a parent, who is not an attorney, may not bring a pro se action on his child's behalf. See Whitehurst v. Wal-Mart, 306 Fed.Appx. 446, 448-49 (11th Cir. 2008) (“a non-lawyer parent has no right to represent a child in an action in the child's name."). Before recommending dismissal of Plaintiff's claims on this basis, the Court will afford Plaintiff until August 5, 2025, to retain counsel. If counsel has not filed a notice of appearance by August 5, 2025, I will recommend that this action be dismissed.
Given the posture of this case. Plaintiff's motions for alternative service (Doc. 3), for leave to electronically file documents (Doc. 4), and to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 5) are due to be denied without prejudice. Plaintiff may renew these motions if the case moves forward with counsel.
DONE and ORDERED in Ocala, Florida on July 15, 2025.
PHILIP R. LAMMENS United States Magistrate Judge
[fn 1]: The Complaint alleges, “this Petition is filed pro se by a layperson and on behalf of a minor child." Doc. 1 at 1.