From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. U.S.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jun 2, 1987
818 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1987)

Summary

holding that while a non-attorney may represent himself, he has no authority to appear as an attorney for others

Summary of this case from Campbell v. Burt

Opinion

Nos. 86-3552, 86-4116, 86-4122.

Argued and Submitted May 5, 1987.

Decided June 2, 1987.

Richard L. Stradley, Hillsboro, Or., for plaintiffs-appellants.

Gary Gray, Washington, D.C., for defendants-appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon.

Before KILKENNY, ANDERSON and NOONAN, Circuit Judges.


The C.E. Pope Equity Trust brought a complaint whose signature was as follows:

C.E. POPE EQUITY TRUST

By: AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL CIVIL RIGHTS UNION, Trustee'

By: ___________________

Richard L. Stradley, Trustee

The J.A. Shadwick Business Trust brought a complaint whose signature read as follows:

J.A. SHADWICK BUSINESS TRUST

By: AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL CIVIL RIGHTS UNION, Trustee

By: ___________________

Richard L. Stradley, Trustee

The district court dismissed the complaint in C.E. Pope without prejudice and granted the defendants' motion to strike the complaint in Shadwick. The issue in both cases is the same and they have been consolidated for argument and decision here. We affirm the district court.

ANALYSIS

The decisions of the district court were interlocutory but appealable, falling within the exception for collateral orders which conclusively determine the disputed question; resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action; and are effectively unreviewable on appeal. Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949); see Kuster v. Block, 773 F.2d 1048 (9th Cir. 1985).

The Judiciary Act of 1789, § 35, 1 Stat. 73, 92 (1789) provided that "in all the courts of the United States, the parties may plead and manage their own causes personally . . ." This same language is now found in 28 U.S.C. § 1654 which reads:

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 courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein.

The specific question raised by the claim to the right of self-representation is whether one seeking to represent himself pro se is a person who by substantive law has the right sought to be enforced. Put differently, is Stradley, in conducting the litigation, the real party in interest? See Heiskell v. Mozie, 82 F.2d 861, 863 (D.C. Cir. 1936). It is clear that he is not. Stradley appeared, not on his own behalf, but rather as trustee of the American Constitutional and Civil Rights Union, which itself is alleged to be the trustee of the Trusts bringing the complaints. Stradley is two steps removed from the real parties in interest.

Although a non-attorney may appear in propria persona in his own behalf, that privilege is personal to him. McShane v. United States, 366 F.2d 286, 288 (9th Cir. 1966). He has no authority to appear as an attorney for others than himself. Russell v. United States, 308 F.2d 78, 79 (9th Cir. 1962); Collins v. O'Brien, 208 F.2d 44, 45 (D.C.Cir. 1953), cert. denied, 347 U.S. 944, 74 S.Ct. 640, 98 L.Ed. 1092 (1954). In the instant case, the record shows no matter before the district court presented by, or on behalf of, Richard Stradley. Stradley's status as trustee is fiduciary; his statutory responsibility is the orderly administration of assets. United States v. Cooke, 228 F.2d 667, 669 (9th Cir. 1955). Here the record does not identify the Trusts' beneficiaries. Because Stradley is not the actual beneficial owner of the claims being asserted by the Trusts (so far as one can tell from the record), he cannot be viewed as a "party" conducting his " own case personally" within the meaning of Section 1654. He may not claim that his status as trustee includes the right to present arguments pro se in federal court.

The Trusts' reliance on ORS § 128.009 (1984) for the proposition that a trustee may prosecute a suit on behalf of a trust whether he is a qualified attorney or not, is misplaced. Nowhere in the statutory authority to prosecute claims for the protection of trust assets, ORS § 128.009(3)(z), or "to perform, without court authorization, every act which a prudent person would perform for the purposes of the trust including but not limited to the powers specified [in the statute]," ORS § 128.009(1), can be found authority for a nonlawyer to represent a trust. Marguerite E. Wright Trust v. Department of Revenue, 297 Or. 533, 685 P.2d 418 (1984) is not to the contrary. There, the Supreme Court of Oregon rejected a nonlawyer trustee's reliance on Chapter 128 and affirmed dismissal, noting that (1) the complaint failed to allege that the trustee was in fact a trustee, and (2) the putative trustee claimed to represent a "business trust" to which the Oregon statute is not applicable in any event. The Oregon court had no occasion to decide, and did not decide, whether a nonlawyer could appear for a trust in the Oregon state courts in other circumstances. In any event, Oregon practice would not control practice in the federal courts.

The Trusts' reliance on FRCP Rule 17(a) is also misplaced. Rule 17(a) authorizes a trustee of an express trust to sue on behalf of the trust, without joining persons "for whose benefit the action is brought;" the rule does not warrant the conclusion that a nonlawyer can maintain such a suit in propria persona. The reciprocal relation between the bar and the bench permits an exception only for a person acting personally. A federal court rightly expects a lawyer to represent a litigant. By its supervision of the bar and through its reliance on the lawyers before it, the court is enabled to function. Professional competence and professional responsibility are the sine qua non of federal litigation and effective judicial response.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. U.S.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jun 2, 1987
818 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1987)

holding that while a non-attorney may represent himself, he has no authority to appear as an attorney for others

Summary of this case from Campbell v. Burt

holding that "non-attorney may appear in propria persona in his own behalf only

Summary of this case from Perryman v. Newsom

holding that a pro se litigant may not appear as an attorney for others

Summary of this case from Strojnik v. Kapalua Land Co.

holding that a trustee attempting to represent a trust pro se was not, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1654, a "party" conducting his "own case personally" as he was not the beneficial owner of the claims being asserted

Summary of this case from Insite Wireless Grp., LLC v. Steve Lemay, LLC

holding a non-attorney may appear pro se on his or her own behalf but lacks authority to appear as an attorney for others

Summary of this case from Lepp v. Yuba Cnty.

holding that a non-attorney cannot appear pro se on behalf of a trust

Summary of this case from Chavez v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co.

holding that a pro se litigant may not appear as an attorney for others

Summary of this case from Berry v. Modesto Area Express Reg'l Transit

holding that a pro se litigant may not appear as an attorney for others

Summary of this case from Juarez v. Queen Furniture

holding that "[a]lthough a non- attorney may appear in propria persona in his own behalf, that privilege is personal to him. . . . He has no authority to appear as an attorney for others than himself"

Summary of this case from Stevens v. Aranas

holding that a pro se litigant may not appear as an attorney for others

Summary of this case from Barry v. Yosemite Cmty. Coll. Dist.

holding that pro se litigants have no authority to represent anyone other than themselves

Summary of this case from Greene v. Dantzler

holding that "non-attorney may appear in propria persona in his own behalf," but has no authority to appear as an attorney for others

Summary of this case from Wahl v. Sutton

holding that a pro se litigant "has no authority to appear as an attorney for others"

Summary of this case from Tanksley v. Langston

holding that a non-attorney has a right to appear pro se on his or her own behalf, but "has no authority to appear as an attorney for others"

Summary of this case from Singh v. Cnty. of Sacramento

holding that a pro se litigant may not appear as an attorney for others

Summary of this case from Tevis v. Cal. Dep't of Veterans Affairs

holding that a nonlawyer could not appear pro se on behalf of trust

Summary of this case from Mitchelle Art 89 Trust v. Astor Alt, LLC

holding that a pro se litigant may not appear as an attorney for others

Summary of this case from Lam v. City of S.F.

holding that a non-attorney has a right to appear pro se on his or her own behalf, but "has no authority to appear as an attorney for others"

Summary of this case from Singh v. Cnty. of Sacramento

holding that "non-attorney may appear in propria persona in his own behalf only

Summary of this case from Anderson v. Brown

holding that in actions in federal court, trusts must be represented by an attorney, and that neither federal law nor California law provide otherwise

Summary of this case from Simons v. U.S. Bank N.A.

holding that the representative of a trust is not "viewed as a 'party' conducting his 'own case personally' and thus lacks "the right to present arguments pro se in federal court"

Summary of this case from Jay Express Trust v. Am. Homes 4 Rent L.L.C.

holding that the representative of a trust is not "viewed as a 'party' conducting his 'own case personally' and thus lacks "the right to present arguments pro se in federal court"

Summary of this case from Jay Express Trust v. Am. Homes 4 Rent, LLC

holding that a non-attorney "has no authority to appear as an attorney for others than himself."

Summary of this case from Murphy v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA

holding that a non-attorney cannot appear on behalf of others

Summary of this case from Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Remington

holding that a pro se litigant may not appear as an attorney for others

Summary of this case from Koch v. CHS Inc.
Case details for

C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. U.S.

Case Details

Full title:C.E. POPE EQUITY TRUST, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jun 2, 1987

Citations

818 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1987)

Citing Cases

U.S. v. Molen

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has permitted motions to strike and motions to dismiss pleadings filed by…

Hartnett v. Farm Serv. Agency

28 U.S.C. § 1654 (emphasis added). Alpha Land Co. v. Little, 238 F.R.D. 497, 499 (E.D. Cal. 2006) (citing…