WEISENBURG THOMAS v. GEORGIA DEPT HUMAN RESOURCES et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATHENS DIVISION
AARON KYLE WEISENBURG THOMAS,
Plaintiff,
v.
GEORGIA DEPT. OF HUMAN
RESOURCES, et al.,
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION NO.
3:25-cv-00192-TES
ORDER
On December 5, 2025, the Court issued a show cause order asking Plaintiff Aaron
Kyle Weisenburg Thomas to show whether Kevin Thomas, an individual filing
pleadings on behalf of Plaintiff, is an attorney licensed to practice law in the Middle
District of Georgia or in the State of Georgia. See [Doc. 3]. In that same Order, the Court
reminded Plaintiff that he had not yet paid the required filing fee associated with filing
the case and that he “must either pay the filing fee or move to proceed in forma pauperis
(“IFP”).” [Id. at p. 2]. Plaintiff was furthermore warned that “[f]ailure to pay the fee or
to move (and be granted) IFP status could result in Plaintiff’s case being dismissed.”
[Id.].
On December 15, 2025, Kevin Thomas responded to the Order [Doc. 3] and
informed the Court that he is not, in fact, an attorney licensed to practice law in the
Case 3:25-cv-00192-TES Document 5 Filed 12/24/25 Page 1 of 3

2
Middle District of Georgia or in the State of Georgia and that he “will not file any
additional documents on [Plaintiff’s] behalf.” See [Doc. 4]. In federal court, individual
parties “may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel.” 28 U.S.C. §
1654. This necessarily means that nonlawyers may not represent parties in federal courts.
Jacox v. Dep’t of Def., No. CIVA 5:06CV182 HL, 2007 WL 118102 (M.D. Ga. Jan. 10, 2007).
Based on Kevin Thomas’ response to the Court’s Order [Doc. 3], it is clear that Plaintiff
has not conducted his own case personally or by counsel. This is further evidenced by the
fact that Plaintiff failed to personally respond to the Court’s Order [Doc. 3] in his
individual capacity. Plaintiff furthermore failed to mitigate this issue by not moving to
proceed IFP. Given that Plaintiff did not file his Complaint either personally or through
legal counsel and did not move to proceed IFP, this case has not been properly brought
before this Court and must be dismissed.
Additionally, neither Plaintiff nor Mr. Thomas have addressed the issue of the
unpaid filing fee. As of December 23, 2025, Plaintiff has not paid the required filing fee.
As previously noted, Plaintiff has not moved to proceed IFP and thus remains
responsible for payment of any fees required by the Court.
Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice.1
1 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Brown v Tallahassee Police Dep’t, 205 F. App’x 802, 802 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam)
(“The court may dismiss an action sua sponte under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute or failure to obey a
court order.”) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and Lopez v. Aransas Cty. Indep. Sch. Dist., 570 F.2d 541, 544 (5th
Cir. 1978)).
Case 3:25-cv-00192-TES Document 5 Filed 12/24/25 Page 2 of 3

3
SO ORDERED, this 23rd day of December, 2025.
S/ Tilman E. Self, III
TILMAN E. SELF, III, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case 3:25-cv-00192-TES Document 5 Filed 12/24/25 Page 3 of 3