PANDURE v. RICCI et al

Filing 24

MEMORANDUM OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Freda L. Wolfson on 9/18/2012. (mmh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

JAMIE PANDURE,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHELLE RICCI, et al.,
Respondents.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil No. 10-4426 (FLW)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

WOLFSON, District Judge:
1. Jamie Pandure, pro se Petitioner, filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a judgment of conviction entered in the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Monmouth County, on August 21, 1998.
2. On September 12, 2011, Respondents filed an Answer and exhibits from the state
court record. (Dkt. Nos. 9-13.)
3. On November 4, 2011, Petitioner filed a “MOTION FOR PRODUCTION OF
EXHIBITS NEEDED TO PREPARE A REPLY AND TRAVERSE.” (Dkt. 14.) Respondents
filed a letter opposing Petitioner’s motion, and Petitioner filed a reply. By Order entered March
15, 2012, this Court granted Petitioner’s motion, ordered Respondents to serve the exhibits
within 30 days, and ordered Petitioner to file a reply to the Answer within 45 days of the date he
received the exhibits. (Dk. 18.)
4. On May 17, 2012, the Clerk received and filed Petitioner’s motion to extend the time
to file a reply by 90 days. (Dkt. 21.) The motion, which is dated May 17, 2012, is supported by a
letter brief, declaration by Jamie Pandure dated May 17, 2012, certificate of service dated May

17, 2012, and cover letter dated May 17, 2012. Jamie Pandure, pro se Petitioner, did not sign the
motion, declaration, certificate of service, or cover letter. Rather, his name is typed in the
signature spaces on each document.
5. On August 21, 2012, the Clerk received and filed Petitioner’s second motion to extend
the time to file a reply by 90 days. (Dkt. 23.) The motion, which is dated August 21, 2012, is
supported by declaration by Jamie Pandure dated August 20, 2012, letter dated August 16, 2012,
to Petitioner from Jerald D. Albrecht, Executive Director of Princeton Paralegal Services, LLP,
letter brief dated August 21, 2012, certificate of service dated August 21, 2012, and cover letter
dated August 21, 2012. The letter from Jerald D. Albrecht states that “Princeton paralegal
Services, L.L.P., needs an additional 90 days to complete the research and draft your Reply and
Traverse due to a disruption of work on your case in connection with the need to relocate our
office . . . . [W]e have drafted motion papers on your behalf seeking an additional 90 days to
prepare your papers, which if granted would create a new deadline for filing your Reply and
Traverse on or before November 23, 2012.” (Dkt. 23-1 at 5.) Jamie Pandure did not sign the
motion, declaration, certificate of service, or cover letter. His name is typed in the signature
spaces on each document.
6. Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
(a) Signature. Every pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by at least
one attorney of record in the attorney’s name - or by a party personally if the party is
unrepresented. The paper must state the signer’s address, email address, and telephone
number . . . . The court must strike an unsigned paper unless the omission is promptly
corrected after being called to the attorney’s or party’s attention.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a).

2

7. The meaning of the word “signed,” as that word appears in Rule 11(a), does not permit
typed names. See Becker v. Montgomery, 532 U.S. 757, 764 (2001).
8. Correction within the meaning of Rule 11(a) “can be made by signing the paper on file
or by submitting a duplicate that contains the signature.” See Becker, 532 U.S. at 764 (quoting
Advisory Committee’s Notes on Fed. Rule. Civ. P. 11, 28 U.S.C.App., p. 666).
9. In addition, in the federal courts, “parties may plead and conduct their own cases
personally or by counsel.” 28 U.S.C. § 1654. “Although § 1654 thus recognizes that an
individual generally has the right to proceed pro se with respect to his own claims or claims
against him personally, the statute does not permit unlicensed laymen to represent anyone else
other than themselves.” Berrios v. New York City Housing Authority, 564 F.3d 130, 132 (2d
Cir. 2009) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Osei-Afiyie v. Med. Coll. of
Pa., 937 F.2d 876, 882-83 (3d Cir. 1991); Enders v. Super Fresh, 346 Fed. App’x 829 (3d Cir.
2009). Thus, § 1654 prohibits a paralegal from representing a prisoner in a civil action in federal
court. See Herrera-Venegas v. Sanchez-Rivera, 681 F.2d 41 (1st Cir. 1982). As the First Circuit
explained:
[W]e do not wish to be understood as saying that [prisoner-plaintiffs] are not free
to accept the advice and assistance of [a paralegal] or any other person. We
simply mean that while [prisoner-plaintiffs] are unrepresented by counsel, they
must take legal responsibility for, and must themselves sign all papers filed in this
court relative to their own case or cases. By the same token, any papers served by
the court or opposing parties shall be served on the [plaintiffs] only. In other
words, unless represented by counsel, the [plaintiffs] are solely responsible for the
handling of this case.
Herrera-Venegas, 681 F.2d at 42.

3

10. Because Petitioner Pandure did not sign his motions to extend the time to file a reply,
or the supporting papers, this Court will strike the motions and other documents not signed by
Pandure, as required by Rule 11(a), unless these omissions are corrected within 14 days of the
date of the entry of the Order accompanying this Memorandum Opinion.
11. An appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

s/Freda L. Wolfson
FREDA L. WOLFSON, U.S.D.J.
Dated:

September 18 , 2012

4