Mr. Hicks himself has responded to this court's notice pursuant to
Fed. R. App. P. 34(a). He has also written a letter to Judge Cudahy
seeking an x-ray of his head, which he contends will reveal that the
CIA has implanted "some kind of miniaturized mind reading, message
receiving, pain causing device" in his head as part of a scientific
experiment to promote national security.

Mr. Hicks himself has responded to this court's notice pursuant to
Fed. R. App. P. 34(a). He has also written a letter to Judge Cudahy
seeking an x-ray of his head, which he contends will reveal that the
CIA has implanted "some kind of miniaturized mind reading, message
receiving, pain causing device" in his head as part of a scientific
experiment to promote national security.
=20
~~~~~~~~
=20
RUDY HICKS, Plaintiff, and MAMIE HICKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. G. L.
HENMAN, Defendant-Appellee
=20
No. 89-2514
=20
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
=20
1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 3542
=20
=20
February 13, 1991, Submitted *
=20
* After preliminary examination of the briefs, the court notified the
parties that it had tentatively concluded that oral argument would not
be helpful to the court in this case. The notice provided that any
party might file a "Statement as to Need of Oral Argument." See Rule
34(a), Fed. R. App. P.; Circuit Rule 34(f). Rudy Hicks, although not a
party to this appeal, has filed a statement requesting oral argument.
Upon consideration of that statement, the briefs, and the record, the
request for oral argument is denied, and the appeal is submitted on
the briefs and record.
March 4, 1991
=20
NOTICE: [*1] =20
=20
UNPUBLISHED ORDER NOT TO BE CITED PER SEVENTH CIRCUIT RULE 53.
=20
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Reported as Table Case at 927 F.2d 607, 1991 U.S.
App. LEXIS 7151.
=20
PRIOR HISTORY: =20
=20
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District
of Illinois, East St. Louis Division. No. 87 C 3652; William D.
Stiehl, Judge.
=20
JUDGES: Richard A. Posner, Circuit Judge, Joel M. Flaum, Circuit
Judge, Michael S. Kanne, Circuit Judge.
=20
OPINION: ORDER
=20
Rudy Hicks is an inmate at the United States Penitentiary at Marion,
Illinois, (Marion). Mamie Hicks is Rudy's mother. Mr. Hicks and Mrs.
Hicks filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. =A7 1983 in which
they alleged that various officials at Marion and at the United States
Penitentiary at Lompoc, California, (Lompoc), violated Mr. Hicks's
constitutional rights by putting poisons in his food, by ignoring his
serious medical and safety needs, by causing unnamed corrections
officers to threaten his safety in retaliation for an earlier lawsuit,
and by disciplining and transferring him from Lompoc on a false
disciplinary ticket. The complaint did not allege any personal injury
to Mrs. Hicks. She, however, claimed that her son had been injured
physically and mentally to the point of incompetency and sought to
proceed on his behalf.
=20
The district court [*2] dismissed Mrs. Hicks as a plaintiff in her
own behalf for lack of standing since she alleged no personal injury.
She remained involved in the suit, however, pending a determination of
Mr. Hicks's competency. The district court ordered that Mr. Hicks be
sent to the United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners at
Springfield, Missouri, for an evaluation of his competency. Based on
the report from the medical professionals at Springfield, the district
court found that Mr. Hicks was physically and mentally capable of
pursuing litigation on his own behalf. Mr. Hicks then filed a request
for a voluntary dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1). In an
order of June 9, 1989, the district court concluded that Mr. Hicks was
competent, and granted his request to dismiss the action. On June 13,
1989, the district court entered an order denying Mrs. Hicks's request
to be appointed guardian ad litem.
=20
Mrs. Hicks timely filed a notice of appeal from this judgment. The
notice of appeal states that "MAMIE HICKS and RUDY HICKS,
plaintiffs-appellants in the above-entitled matter, appeals [sic],"
but only Mrs. Hicks signed the notice of appeal. Mrs. Hicks did not
file an appearance form. Mrs. [*3] Hicks's signature alone appears
on the jurisdictional statement and on motions for appointment of
counsel and to proceed in forma pauperis. Mr. Hicks himself has
responded to this court's notice pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 34(a). He
has also written a letter to Judge Cudahy seeking an x-ray of his
head, which he contends will reveal that the CIA has implanted "some
kind of miniaturized mind reading, message receiving, pain causing
device" in his head as part of a scientific experiment to promote
national security. The response to the Rule 34(a) notice and letter to
Judge Cudahy, however, are insufficient to make Mr. Hicks a party to
this appeal.
=20
Mrs. Hicks has also filed a brief which only she signed as "Appellant
Pro Se on behalf of her son RUDY HICKS." Mrs. Hicks argues that (1)
the district court abused its discretion by failing to appoint counsel
to represent her son, or alternatively to appoint her as her son's
guardian ad litem; and (2) her son was denied his constitutional right
to have his physical and mental competency determined by an impartial
and unbiased medical examiner.
=20
Mrs. Hicks is not a lawyer; consequently, she may not represent or
appear on behalf of her son [*4] to challenge the district court's
refusal to appoint counsel for him or to assert his due process
rights. See 28 U.S.C. =A7 1654; Lewis v. Lenc-Smith Mfg., 784 F.2d 829,
830 (7th Cir. 1986). It is a closer question whether Mrs. Hicks may,
on her own behalf, challenge the denial of her request that she be
appointed guardian for her son. We need not address that issue,
however, because other than stating in an argument heading that the
district court abused its discretion in failing to appoint her as
guardian ad litem for her son, she makes no argument on this point and
cites no case law. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(4). A mere narrative of
events in the Statement of the Case is not sufficient to raise the
issue on appeal, see Brooks v. Allison Div. of General Motors Corp.,
874 F.2d 489, 490 (7th Cir. 1989); consequently, it is waived. See
Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 868 F.2d 943, 946 n.1 (7th Cir.
1989), rev'd in part on other grounds, 110 S. Ct. 2729 (1990). We
recognize that Mrs. Hicks is proceeding pro se, but even a pro se
litigant must provide some identifiable argument. See McCottrell v.
Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n, 726 F.2d 350, [*5] 351 (7th
Cir. 1984).
=20
Because Mrs. Hicks is not an attorney, she may only represent her own
interests before this court. The issues she raises, however, advance
her son's interests. Accordingly, the notice of appeal, jurisdictional
statement, and brief that Mrs. Hicks has filed on behalf of her son
are stricken, and this appeal is DISMISS

In article <f0f9ae7d.0310080849.53cba306@posting.google.com>,
Martin F. Abernathy <abemarf@aol.com> wrote:
And you believe this individual because....?
-Geoff