First Amendment Foundation v. Village of Brookfield

575 F. Supp. 1207, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10658
CourtDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois
DecidedDecember 19, 1983
Docket83 C 8760
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 575 F. Supp. 1207 (First Amendment Foundation v. Village of Brookfield) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
First Amendment Foundation v. Village of Brookfield, 575 F. Supp. 1207, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10658 (N.D. Ill. 1983).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

GETZENDANNER, District Judge:

On its own motion, the court dismisses this action without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1654. Paragraph 2 of the Complaint in this case states in part:

Plaintiff, THE FIRST AMENDMENT FOUNDATION is a Partnership of Pro Se Litigants who are citizens of the United States of America and Canada. The First Amendment Foundation is located in Rainy River, Ontario, Canada. Shelly Weisberg is a Partner in the First Amendment Foundation and will appear in Court as a Pro Socio.

28 U.S.C. § 1654 provides:

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.

Corporations must be represented in court by attorneys admitted to practice, and may not appear through an officer or other lay representative. Strong Delivery Ministry Association v. Board of Appeals, 543 F.2d 32 (7th Cir.1976). The same rule applies to partnerships and other unincorporated organizations. Move Organization v. United States Department of Justice, 555 F.Supp. 684, 692-93 (E.D.Pa.1983); Turner v. American Bar Association, 407 F.Supp. 451, 476 (N.D.Tex., W.D.Pa., N.D. Ind., D.Minn., S.D.Ala., W.D.Wis.1975), aff'd sub nom. Pilla v. American Bar Association, 542 F.2d 56 (8th Cir.1976). But see United States v. Reeves, 431 F.2d 1187 (9th Cir.1970).

Mr. Weisberg is not a member of the bar of this court, and it is the court’s understanding that he is not an attorney. His appearance on behalf of plaintiff therefore is improper. The order of December 16, 1983, granting plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint, is vacated. The papers *1208 filed on plaintiffs behalf are stricken, and the case is dismissed without prejudice.

It is so ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Roundtree v. Reynolds
E.D. Wisconsin, 2024
Fifth Third Bank v. Greene
N.D. Indiana, 2024
Two Old Hippies, LLC v. Catch the Bus, LLC
784 F. Supp. 2d 1221 (D. New Mexico, 2011)
United States v. Hagerman
545 F.3d 579 (Seventh Circuit, 2008)
Runkle v. United States
962 F. Supp. 1112 (N.D. Indiana, 1997)
Oregon Peaceworks Green, PAC v. Secretary of State
810 P.2d 836 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1991)
Eagle Associates v. Bank of Montreal
926 F.2d 1305 (Second Circuit, 1991)
Donham v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture
725 F. Supp. 985 (S.D. Illinois, 1989)
In Re the Vogue
92 B.R. 717 (E.D. Michigan, 1988)
State v. Settle
523 A.2d 124 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
575 F. Supp. 1207, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10658, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/first-amendment-foundation-v-village-of-brookfield-ilnd-1983.