Pusha v. Piazza

E.D. Arkansas

Pusha v. Piazza

DecidedApril 16, 2019

Docket4:19-cv-00259

StatusUnknown

This text of Pusha v. Piazza (Pusha v. Piazza) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pusha v. Piazza, (E.D. Ark. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION MICHAEL PUSHA, ADC #105492 PLAINTIFF VS. 4:19-CV-00259-BRW CHRIS PIAZZA, ET AL. DEFENDANTS ORDER Plaintiff did not sign the complaint. Instead, only Larry David Davis, a non-lawyer, signed the complaint. When a non-lawyer attempts to represent the interests of other persons, the practice constitutes the unauthorized practice of law and results in a nullity.1 Additionally, the Complaint fails to state a cause of action. The only claim related to Plaintiff appears to be allegations about being charged only by information rather than after a grand jury hearing and indictment fails to state a cause of action. The Arkansas Supreme Court

“has held many times that a defendant has no constitutional right to be indicted by a grand jury and that amendment 21 to the Arkansas Constitution, which permits indictment by information, is constitutional.”2 Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED. I certify that an in forma pauperis appeal of this dismissal would be frivolous and would not be taken in good faith. IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of April, 2019. Billy Roy Wilson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1McKibben v. Mullis, 90 S.W.3d 442, 450 (Ark. App. 2002). 2McClinton v. State, 2018 Ark. 116, 5–6,, cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 195 (2018).

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION MICHAEL PUSHA, ADC #105492 PLAINTIFF VS. 4:19-CV-00259-BRW CHRIS PIAZZA, ET AL. DEFENDANTS ORDER Plaintiff did not sign the complaint. Instead, only Larry David Davis, a non-lawyer, signed the complaint. When a non-lawyer attempts to represent the interests of other persons, the practice constitutes the unauthorized practice of law and results in a nullity.1 Additionally, the Complaint fails to state a cause of action. The only claim related to Plaintiff appears to be allegations about being charged only by information rather than after a grand jury hearing and indictment fails to state a cause of action. The Arkansas Supreme Court

“has held many times that a defendant has no constitutional right to be indicted by a grand jury and that amendment 21 to the Arkansas Constitution, which permits indictment by information, is constitutional.”2 Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED. I certify that an in forma pauperis appeal of this dismissal would be frivolous and would not be taken in good faith. IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of April, 2019. Billy Roy Wilson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1McKibben v. Mullis, 90 S.W.3d 442, 450 (Ark. App. 2002). 2McClinton v. State, 2018 Ark. 116, 5–6,, cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 195 (2018).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Pusha v. Piazza, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pusha-v-piazza-ared-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack