SMITH v. U.S. GOVERNMENT et al
Filing
4
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER that Plaintiff's Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Affidavit/Declaration in Support (Docket Entry 1) is DENIED. Signed by MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD on 9/13/2010. (Lapira, Sharon)
-LPA SMITH, et al v. U.S. GOVERNMENT et al
Doc. 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
KEVIN M. SMITH, for and on the ) behalf of and K.M.J. International,) Inc., KEVIN M. SMITH et alia, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) U.S. GOVERNMENT, U.S. TREASURY ) DEPARTMENT, INTERNAL REVENUE ) SERVICE, NOREEN BAVARO, I.R.S. ) Agent et alia, ) ) Defendants. )
1:10CV673
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Affidavit/Declaration in Support (Docket Entry 1). Plaintiff filed that Application in
conjunction with a pro se Complaint bearing the above caption. (Docket Entry 2.) The Court will deny Plaintiff's request to
proceed in forma pauperis for two reasons. First, Plaintiff has not provided requested information
necessary to assess his financial eligibility for in forma pauperis status. In this regard, the Court notes that the Application 1) has "cash" (or
states that Plaintiff (and/or his "spouse"):
"money") "in a checking, savings, or any other financial account," but does not provide the "total value" of such accounts, as directed (see Docket Entry 1 at 2); and 2) owns a piece of real
Dockets.Justia.com
property
and
three
vehicles,
but
does
not
"state
[their]
approximate value," as directed (see id. at 3). Second, the caption and the content of Plaintiff's Complaint make clear that he seeks to proceed with claims on behalf of a corporation. (See Docket Entry 2 at 1-4.) The United States
Supreme Court has held that "artificial entities" do not "qualify for treatment in forma pauperis under [federal law]." Rowland v.
California Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 196 (1993). Moreover, the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit has ruled that, although "[a]n individual unquestionably has the right to litigate his own claims in federal court . . . . The right to litigate for oneself, however, does not Myers v. See
create a coordinate right to litigate for others."
Loudoun Cnty. Pub. Sch., 418 F.3d 395, 400 (4th Cir. 2005).
also In re Tamojira, 20 Fed. Appx. 133, 133-34 (4th Cir. 2001) ("[I]t is well settled that a corporation must be represented by an attorney in federal court."); McGowan v. Cross, Nos. 92-1480, 921584, 1993 WL 125416, decision at *3 n.1 (4th Cir. Apr. 991 22, F.2d 1993) 790)
(unpublished;
without
opinion,
("Corporations and partnerships, as artificial entities, may not appear pro se but must instead appear through counsel."); Solomon v. Monongalia Cnty. Bar Ass'n, No. 90-1044, 1990 WL 134607, at *1 (4th Cir. Sept. 19, 1990) (unpublished; decision without opinion, 914 F.2d 249) ("The claims presented by the plaintiffs all relate 2
to
the
plaintiffs'
family-owned
business,
Vic's
Garage,
Inc.
Although 28 U.S.C. § 1654 permits parties to conduct their own litigation, it is well settled that a corporation must be
represented by an attorney in federal court. See Nat'l Independent Theatre Exhibitors v. Buena Vista Distribution, 748 F.2d 602, 609 (11th Cir. 1984) (corporate officer could not bring pro se action on behalf of corporation), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1056 (1985); Jones v. Niagra Frontier Transp. Authority, 722 F.2d 20, 22 (2d Cir. 1983); Richdel, Inc. v. Sunspool Corp., 699 F.2d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (expense of attorney does not allow exception to rule that corporation must be represented by attorney). Because the
claims presented allege wrongs committed against the corporation and because Vic's Garage, Inc. is not represented by licensed counsel, the district court correctly dismissed this complaint."). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Affidavit/Declaration in Support (Docket Entry 1) is DENIED. /s/ L. Patrick Auld L. Patrick Auld United States Magistrate Judge
September 13, 2010
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?