
    Andrew Michael THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Evelyn THOMAS, Circle of Friends (AFH); et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 12-35572.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted June 6, 2013.
    Filed June 19, 2013.
    Lafcadio Hearn Darling, Esquire, Holmes, Weddle & Bareott, APC, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Jayne L. Freeman, Keating, Bucklin & McCormack Inc., P.S., Howard Schneider-man, Esquire, Christopher Holm Howard, Esquire, Allison Miller, Colin J. Folawn, Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, PC, Suzanne Liabraaten, AGWA-Office of the Washington Attorney General, D. Jeffrey Burnham, Esquire, Litigation Counsel, Donna M. Moniz, Esquire, Counsel, Johnson, Graffe, Keay, Moniz & Wick, LLP, Seattle, Stephen Sloan Manning, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Olympia, WA, for Defendants-Ap-pellees.
    Before: GILMAN, McKEOWN, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The Honorable Ronald Lee Gilman, Senior Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Andrew Michael Thomas appeals the district court’s dismissal of his case without prejudice. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, see Laub v. United States Dep’t of the Interior, 342 F.3d 1080, 1085 (9th Cir.2003), and we affirm.

The record does not support Thomas’s argument that his sister was merely helping him represent himself pro se; rather, the record makes clear that Thomas did not intend to represent himself. After the district court ordered Thomas to either retain a lawyer or file a statement indicating that he would represent himself, Thomas informed the court that he “would prefer to be Pro Se in word only and have [his sister] represent [him] in these proceedings.” Moreover, the record makes clear that Thomas’s sister, who is not a lawyer, purported to act in a representative capacity. For example, Thomas’s sister signed his complaint and motion papers as his representative. Because non-lawyers may not represent other parties in court, Johns v. Cnty. of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir.1997), we affirm the district court’s judgment dismissing Thomas’s case without prejudice.

We reject Thomas’s argument that we should vacate the district court’s judgment because he simply misunderstood the district court’s instructions. The district court’s orders clearly informed Thomas that his sister was not entitled to represent him. Moreover, this is not the first time that a district court has informed Thomas of this rule. See Order, Thomas v. Seattle Center, No. 2:11-cv-01315-RAJ (W.D.Wash., Dec. 22, 2011). To the extent Thomas’s request that we vacate the district court’s judgment is construed as a request to toll the statute of limitations, we decline to do so because Thomas has not presented any persuasive reasons in favor of tolling.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     