Opinion · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Eleazar Herrera-Venegas v. Felipe Benicio Sanchez-Rivera
681 F.2d 41
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1982-06-03
- Topic
- general
noting that “federal courts have consistently rejected attempts at third-party lay representation” and that “by law an individual may appear in federal courts only pro se or through legal counsel” | stating that “[t]he federal courts have consistently rejected attempts at third-party lay representation” and that “[b]y law an individual may appear in federal courts only pro se or through legal counsel” | stating that “[t]he federal courts have consistently rejected attempts at third-party lay representation” and that “[b]y law an individual may appear in federal courts only pro se or through legal counsel” | noting that federal courts have consistently rejected attempts at third-party lay representation | assessing rule prohibiting lay representation in context of non-lawyer prisoner seeking to represent follow inmates | assessing rule prohibiting lay representation in context of non-lawyer prisoner seeking to represent follow inmates | notwithstanding right of prisoner "to seek assistance and advice on legal matters from other inmates in certain matters," such right does not extend to "representation during litigation by non-party laypersons" | “By law an individual may appear in federal courts only pro se or through legal counsel” | "By law an individual may appear in federal courts only pro se or through legal counsel. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1654." | "By law an individual may appear in federal courts only pro se or through legal counsel. 28 U.S.C. 1654." | “The federal courts have consistently rejected attempts at third-party lay representation. By law an individual may appear in federal courts only pro se or through legal counsel.” (citation omitted) | “The federal courts have consistently rejected attempts at third-party lay representation. By law an individual may appear in federal courts only pro se or through legal counsel.” | “The federal courts have consistently rejected attempts at third-party lay representation. By law, an individual may appear in federal courts only pro se or through legal counsel.” (cleaned up) | “The federal courts have consistently rejected attempts at third-party lay representation.” | “The federal courts have consistently rejected attempts at third-party lay representation.” | “The federal courts have consistently rejected attempts at third-party lay representation.” | “The federal courts have consistently rejected attempts at third-party lay representation.” | “The federal courts have consistently rejected attempts at third-party lay representation.” | prison inmates may not be represented by fellow inmates | “[F]ederal courts have consistently rejected attempts at third-party lay representation.” | “federal courts have consistently rejected attempts at third-party lay representation” | “The federal 7 Defendants have also characterized their motion to dismiss as a motion for judgment on the pleadings. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). However, because the Defendants have not yet filed an answer to the amended complaint, a motion pursuant to Rule 12(c
Citator
- Cited by
- 49 opinions
*42 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
A non-lawyer prisoner has asked this court to enter his appearance as “Paralegal Counsel” in this appeal brought by two fellow prisoners from dismissal of their civil rights suit. Additionally, he asks that copies of all correspondence in this matter be served upon him.
While Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 89 S.Ct. 747, 21 L.Ed.2d 718 (1969) and, more particularly, Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 577-580, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 2985-2986, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974), guarantee prisoners the right to seek assistance and advice on legal matters from other inmates in certain matters, these cases do not sanction representation during litigation by non-party laypersons.
The federal courts have consistently rejected attempts at third-party lay representation. United States v. Taylor, 569 F.2d 448 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 952, 98 S.Ct. 1581, 55 L.Ed.2d 803 (1978) and cases cited therein. By law an individual may appear in federal courts only pro se or through legal counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 1654.
One of many good reasons for distinguishing assistance and advice from representation is that a party may be bound, or its rights waived, by its legal representative. When that representative is a licensed attorney there are grounds for belief that the representative’s character, knowledge and training are equal to the responsibility. In addition, remedies and sanctions are available against the lawyer that are not available against the fellow inmate, including misconduct sanctions and malpractice suits. Conversely, if the party inmate commits a costly procedural or other error, the fault is his own and may not be shifted to his in-house advisor, because the right to' assistance protected by the case law is meant to further access to the courts, not to shield an inmate against responsibility for errors once access has been obtained.
We, therefore, decline to accept the appearance of Sylvester Jones in this case. In doing so we do not wish to be understood as saying that the appellants are not free to accept the advice and assistance of Jones or any other person. We simply mean that while appellants 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 appellants only. In other words, unless represented by counsel, the appellants are solely responsible for the handling of this case.
This distinction between the right to “in-house” assistance and “in-house” representation in court may seem to be a narrow one. Yet it is an essential distinction which is vital to the satisfactory conduct of litigation and to the protection both of the court and the inmate.
So ordered.