Keenan v. Trader Joes Company

Sep 1, 2026

1:26-cv-13990

ORDER

MURPHY, J.

Plaintiff Garrett Keenan initiated this action by filing a complaint against his former employer. Dkt. `1. He also filed a motion for leave to proceed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. 2, a motion for miscellaneous relief, Dkt. 3, a motion to proceed through proposed next friend, or in the alternative for appointment of a guardian ad litem, Dkt. 4, and a declaration. Dkt. 5.

Upon review, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff‘s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is ALLOWED.

2. The Clerk shall issue a summons for service of the Defendant. Plaintiff is responsible for ensuring that the summons, the complaint, and this order are served on the Defendant in accordance with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

3. Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, he may elect to have service completed by the United States Marshals Service (“USMS“). If Plaintiff chooses to have service completed by the USMS, he shall provide the agency with a copy of this order, all papers for service, and a completed USM-285 form for each party to be served. The USMS shall complete service as directed by Plaintiff with all costs of service to be advanced by the United States.

4. Plaintiff shall have 90 days from the date of the issuance of the summons to complete service. Failure to complete service in a timely fashion may result in dismissal of this action without prior notice to Plaintiff. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); see also Local Rule 4.1.

5. Plaintiff‘s motion for miscellaneous relief is DENIED as moot. The Clerk entered this one-page document as a motion. Dkt. 3. However, it appears to be a duplicate copy of the relief section of Plaintiff‘s complaint and does not require any action on the part of the Court.

6. Plaintiff‘s motion to proceed through proposed next friend, or in the alternative for appointment of a guardian ad litem, is DENIED. An individual may appear in federal court, either “pro se or through legal counsel.” Herrera-Venegas v. Sanchez-Rivera, 681 F.2d 41, 42 (1st Cir. 1982); see also Hootstein v. Amherst-Pelham Reg‘l Sch. Comm., 361 F. Supp. 3d 94, 101 (D. Mass. 2019); 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 as, by the rules of such court, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein.“); Local Rule 83.5.5(b) of the Local Rules of the U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Dist. of Mass. (“An individual appearing pro se may not represent any other party and may not authorize any other individual who is not a member of the bar of this district to appear on his or her behalf.“). Because Plaintiff‘s mother is not a licensed attorney, she cannot represent Plaintiff or advocate on his behalf and styling her participation as a next friend does not alter this established legal restriction. In addition, the Court declines to appoint a guardian ad litem. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that, where an incompetent person “is unrepresented in an action,” the Court “must appoint a guardian ad litem” or “issue another appropriate order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2). Although the motion describes several of Plaintiff‘s personal limitations, it does not allege that Plaintiff has been adjudicated incompetent. Thus, Rule 17(c)(2) does not require the Court to appoint a guardian ad litem or issue another appropriate order.

The Court recommends Plaintiff inquire into Boston College Law School‘s Federal Pro Se Legal Assistance Program, which provides free information, advice, and limited scope legal assistance to pro se litigants in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Additional information regarding the program can be found here: https://www.mad.uscourts.gov/general/pdf/announce/Federal%20Pro%20Se%20Legal%20Assistance%20Clinic.pdf.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 1, 2026

/s/ Brian E. Murphy

Brian E. Murphy

United States District Judge