Sprau v. Surprise, City of et al

Filing 20

ORDER granting Defendants' 9 Motion to Preclude Ammon M. Sprau from Practicing Law without a License. Ordered denying Plantiff's 16 Motion as moot. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 6/4/2012. (LFIG)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Ammon M. Sprau, II,

10

No. CV-12-437-PHX-GMS

Plaintiff,

11

vs.

12

City of Surprise;
Department,

ORDER

13
14

Surprise

Police

Defendants.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Preclude Ammon M. Sprau
from Practicing Law without a License. (Doc. 9). Defendants also request the Court to
preclude Ammon M. Sprau II from litigating on his own behalf. (Doc. 9). For the
reasons discussed below, the Court grants Defendants’ Motion to Preclude Ammon M.
Sprau from Practicing Law without a License and denies the request to preclude Ammon
M. Sprau II from litigating pro se.
BACKGROUND
On January 31, 2012, Plaintiff filed his amended complaint against Defendants in
the Maricopa County Superior Court alleging violations of his Constitutional rights.
(Doc. 1, Ex. 2). On May 10, 2012, Defendants alleged that Ammon M. Sprau (Mr.
Sprau) has been acting as a legal representative for his son Ammon M. Sprau II (Sprau
II). (Doc. 9). Plaintiff denies these allegations. It appears Mr. Sprau may have assisted

1

in the preparation of the original complaint filed December 20, 2011 in the Maricopa

2

County Superior Court. (Doc. 1, Ex. 1). Mr. Sprau may or may not have assisted in the

3

preparation and filing of Sprau II’s subsequent pleadings. While it is not certain whether

4

Sprau II has been acting on his own behalf, it is certain the privilege to represent one’s

5

self does not create a privilege to be represented by a third-party non-attorney. See

6

McShane v. United States, 366 F.2d 286, 288 (9th Cir. 1966).
DISCUSSION

7
8

I.

Legal Standard

9

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1654, “parties may plead and conduct their own cases

10

personally.” In an action brought by a pro se litigant, the real party in interest must be the

11

person who “has the right to be enforced.” Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661,

12

664 (9th Cir. 2008). The Arizona Supreme Court has held that an attorney in fact, not

13

licensed to practice law, cannot represent anyone other than himself. Hunt Inv. Co. v.

14

Eliot, 154 Ariz. 357, 362, 742 P.2d 858, 863 (Ct. App. 1987) (citing Mosher v. Hiner, 62

15

Ariz. 110, 113—14, 154 P.2d 372, 374 (1944)).

16

II.

Analysis

17

A.

Motion to Preclude Mr. Sprau from Practicing Law without a License

18

Mr. Sprau is not a licensed attorney and is therefore precluded from practicing law

19

in the State of Arizona on behalf of his adult son. A litigant may be his own attorney, but

20

a layman cannot practice law on another’s behalf. Mosher, 62 Ariz. at 113—14. Rule

21

31(a) of the Supreme Court of Arizona defines practicing law as “providing legal advice

22

or services to or for another by” preparing documents, legal opinions, representing

23

another in a proceeding or other formal dispute resolution process, or negotiating legal

24

rights for a specific person (other than one’s self). Mr. Sprau, a third-party non-attorney,

25

is therefore prohibited from performing any of the aforementioned functions on behalf of

26

Sprau II.

27

B.

28

Sprau II may continue to litigate his case pro se. One who acts on his own behalf

Request to Preclude Sprau II from Litigating Pro Se

-2-

1

is not engaged in the practice of law. See Hunt, 154 Ariz. at 362. However, pro se

2

litigants are subject to the same good faith limitations imposed on lawyers, as officers of

3

the court. United States v. Flewitt, 874 F.2d 669, 675 (9th Cir. 1989).
CONCLUSION

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

For the reasons stated above, Ammon M. Sprau will not represent Ammon M.
Sprau II in this matter.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Preclude Ammon
M. Sprau from Practicing Law without a License (Doc. 9) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Stop Harassment (Doc.
16) is DENIED AS MOOT.
Dated this 4th day of June, 2012.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-