Michael H. Vartanian v. the Superior Court of California for Alameda County;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL H. VARTANIAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
And
YORK HING LAW,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
CALIFORNIA FOR ALAMEDA
COUNTY; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 14-15097
D.C. No. 3:13-cv-02873-EMC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Edward M. Chen, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 20, 2016**
FILED
JAN 28 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Michael H. Vartanian appeals pro se from the district court’s order
dismissing him as a plaintiff. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo, Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997),
and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Vartanian as a plaintiff because, as a
non-attorney, Vartanian cannot represent York Hing Law in this action. 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 . . . .”); C.E. Pope Equity Trust v.
United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Although a non-attorney may
appear in propria persona in his own behalf, that privilege is personal to him. [The
non-attorney] . . . has no authority to appear as an attorney for others than himself.”
(internal citation omitted)).
Since Vartanian cannot represent Law in this action, and Law did not sign
the notice of appeal, we do not consider any arguments regarding the district
court’s dismissal of Law’s claims.
We do not consider Vartanian’s arguments regarding his next-of-friend
status or associational standing because they were raised for the first time on
14-15097 2

-- 2 of 3 --

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
Vartanian’s requests, set forth in his opening brief, are denied.
AFFIRMED.
14-15097 3

-- 3 of 3 --