Carolina Procurement Institute, Inc. v. United States Trustee
Filing
4
ORDER advising Appellant that if they fail to obtain counsel by June 6, 2016, the Clerk of Court shall forward the file to the assigned Unites States District Judge to determine whether to enter an order of dismissal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 5/6/2016. (mwal)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Carolina Procurement Institute, Inc.,
Appellant,
vs.
United States Trustee,
Appellee.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C/A No.: 3:16-1378-CMC-SVH
ORDER
The above-captioned case is a pro se appeal from the United States Bankruptcy
Court for the District of South Carolina (“Bankruptcy Court”). This court has appellate
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(a). The docket number for the bankruptcy court
action was Bankruptcy Petition No.: 15-4646-dd. Pursuant to Local Civ. Rule
73.02(B)(2)(e) (D.S.C.), pretrial proceedings in this action have been referred to the
undersigned.
Although Carolina Procurement Institute, Inc. (“Appellant”) is listed as the
appellant in this matter, the notice of appeal is signed by Gary A. Washington and
Michele A. Washington, “Appellants Pro Se.” It is well-established that a corporate entity
cannot appear pro se and must be represented by counsel in court. The United States
Supreme Court recognized that:
[i]t has been the law for the better part of two centuries . . . that a
corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel.
As the courts have recognized, the rationale for that rule applies equally to
all artificial entities. Thus, save a few aberrant cases, the lower courts have
uniformly held that 28 U.S.C. § 1654, providing that “parties may plead
and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel,” does not allow
corporations, partnerships, or associations to appear in federal court
otherwise than through a licensed attorney.
Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194,
201–02 (1993) (internal citations and footnote omitted; RZS Holdings AVV v. PDVSA
Petroleo S.A., 506 F.3d 350, 354 n.3 (4th Cir. 2007). While 28 U.S.C. § 1654 allows
individuals to “plead and conduct their own cases personally,” the statute does not extend
that right to represent other parties.
Accordingly, Appellant is directed to retain counsel to make an appearance on its
behalf by June 6, 2016. If Appellant fails to retain licensed counsel to file an entry of
appearance by June 6, 2016, this matter would be subject to dismissal.
TO THE CLERK OF COURT:
The Clerk of Court shall mail a copy of this order to Appellant at the address of
record with the Bankruptcy Court and to Gary A. Washington and Michelle A.
Washington at the address they provided. If Appellant fails to obtain counsel by June 6,
2016, the Clerk of Court shall forward the file to the assigned United States District
Judge to determine whether to enter an order of dismissal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
May 6, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina
Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge
Appellant’s attention is directed to the important warning on the next page.
2
IMPORTANT INFORMATION: PLEASE READ CAREFULLY
WARNING TO PRO SE PARTY OR NONPARTY FILERS
ALL DOCUMENTS THAT YOU FILE WITH THE COURT WILL BE
AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC ON THE INTERNET THROUGH PACER (PUBLIC
ACCESS TO COURT ELECTRONIC RECORDS) AND THE COURT’S
ELECTRONIC CASE FILING SYSTEM. CERTAIN PERSONAL IDENTIFYING
INFORMATION SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN OR SHOULD BE REMOVED
FROM ALL DOCUMENTS BEFORE YOU SUBMIT THE DOCUMENTS TO
THE COURT FOR FILING.
Rule 5.2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for privacy protection of
electronic or paper filings made with the court. Rule 5.2 applies to ALL documents
submitted for filing, including pleadings, exhibits to pleadings, discovery responses, and
any other document submitted by any party or nonparty for filing. Unless otherwise
ordered by the court, a party or nonparty filer should not put certain types of an
individual’s personal identifying information in documents submitted for filing to any
United States District Court. If it is necessary to file a document that already contains
personal identifying information, the personal identifying information should be
“blacked out” or redacted prior to submitting the document to the Clerk of Court for
filing. A person filing any document containing their own personal identifying
information waives the protection of Rule 5.2(a) by filing the information without
redaction and not under seal.
1. Personal information protected by Rule 5.2(a):
(a) Social Security and Taxpayer identification numbers. If an individual’s social
security number or a taxpayer identification number must be included in a document, the
filer may include only the last four digits of that number.
(b) Names of Minor Children. If the involvement of a minor child must be mentioned,
the filer may include only the initials of that child.
(c) Dates of Birth. If an individual’s date of birth must be included in a document, the
filer may include only the year of birth.
(d) Financial Account Numbers. If financial account numbers are relevant, the filer
may include only the last four digits of these numbers.
2. Protection of other sensitive personal information – such as driver’s license numbers
and alien registration numbers – may be sought under Rule 5.2(d)(filings made under
seal) and (e) (protective orders).
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?