Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Knoefler v. United Bank of Bismarck

20 F.3d 347

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1994-03-31
Topic: general

holding that a self-represented trustee may not appeal on behalf of a trust in federal court | holding that the plaintiff-trustee lacked standing as a pro se litigant to prosecute claims on behalf of the trust | holding that a nonlawyer has no right to represent another entity in federal court | holding “[a] nonlawyer, such as these purported ‘trustee(s) pro se’ has no right to represent another entity, i.e., a trust, in a court of the United States” | providing that “[a] nonlawyer … has no right to represent another entity” | providing that “[a] nonlawyer…has no right to represent another entity” | providing that “[a] nonlawyer…has no right to represent another entity” | providing that “[a] nonlawyer…has no right to represent another entity” | providing that “[a] nonlawyer…has no right to represent another entity” | providing that “[a] nonlawyer…has no right to represent another entity” | providing that “[a] nonlawyer…has no right to represent another entity” | providing that “[a] nonlawyer…has no right to represent another entity” | providing that “[a] nonlawyer…has no right to represent another entity” | providing that “[a] nonlawyer…has no right to represent another entity” | providing that “[a] nonlawyer…has no right to represent another entity” | providing that “[a] nonlawyer…has no right to represent another entity” | providing that “[a] nonlawyer…has no right to represent another entity” | providing that “[a] nonlawyer…has no right to represent another entity” | providing that “[a] nonlawyer…has no right to represent another entity” | dismissing appeals filed by nonlawyer trustees because they had “no right to represent another entity, i.e., a trust, in a court of the United States” | providing that “[a] nonlawyer…has no right to represent another entity” | providing that “[a] nonlawyer…has no right to represent another entity” | providing that “[a] nonlawyer…has no right to represent another entity” | “A nonlawyer . . . has no right to represent another entity . . . .” | a nonlawyer has no right to represent another entity in a court of the United States | a nonlawyer has no right to represent another entity in a court of the United States | “A nonlawyer . . . has no right to represent another entity, i.e., a trust, in a court of the United States.” | “A nonlawyer . . . has no right to represent another entity . . . .” | “A nonlawyer . . . has no right to represent another entity . . . .” | “A nonlawyer . . . has no right to represent another entity . . . .” | “A nonlawyer, such as these purported ‘trustee(s) pro se’ has no right to represent another entity, i.e., a trust, in a court of the United States.” | “A nonlawyer, such as these purported ‘trustee(s) pro se’ has no right to represent another entity, i.e. a trust, in a court of the United States.” | “A nonlawyer, such as these purported ‘trustee(s) pro se,’ has no right to represent another entity, i.e., a trust, in a court of the United States.” | “A nonlawyer, such as these purported ‘trustee(s) pro se’ has no right to represent another entity, i.e., a trust, in a court of the United States.” | “A nonlawyer, such as these purported ‘trustee(s) pro se[,]’ has no right to represent another entity, i.e., a trust, in a court of the United States.” | “A nonlawyer, such as these purported ‘trustee(s) pro se[,] has no right to represent another entity, i.e., a trust, in a court of the United States.” | “A nonlawyer, such as these purported ‘trustee(s) pro se’ has no right to represent another entity, i.e., a trust, in a court of the United States.” | “A nonlawyer, such as these purported ‘trustee(s) pro se,’ has no right to represent another entity, i.e., a trust, in a court of the United States.” | “A nonlawyer, such as these purported ‘trustee(s) pro se’ has no right to represent another entity, i.e., a trust, in a court of the United States.” | “A nonlawyer, such as these purported ‘trustee(s) pro se’ has no right to represent another entity, i.e., a trust, in a c

Citator

Cited by: 46 opinions

KNOEFLER v. UNITED BANK OF BISMARCK,20 F.3d 347(8th Cir. 1994)

RAY KNOEFLER AND RAY KNOEFLER, D/B/A KNOEFLER HONEY FARMS, APPELLANTS, v.

UNITED BANK OF BISMARCK AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEES.

GOLDEN HONEY, BY AND THROUGH GREG SHEPHERD, TRUSTEE, APPELLANT, v. UNITED

BANK OF BISMARCK AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEES.

CROUSE 05-27K, BY AND THROUGH BOB J. SMITH, APPELLANT, v. UNITED BANK OF

BISMARCK AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEES.

Nos. 93-1844, 93-1858 and 93-1859.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted March 14, 1994.

Decided March 31, 1994.

Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc Denied May 13, 1994.

Appellants were not represented by counsel.

David L. Peterson and Gerry Gunderson, Bismarck, ND, for United Bank of Bismarck.

Michael L. Paup, Gary R. Allen, William S. Estabrook, and Paula K. Speck, Washington, DC, for U.S.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota.

Before MAGILL, Circuit Judge, JOHN R. GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge, and HANSEN, Circuit Judge.

HANSEN, Circuit Judge.

[1] Each of the appellants seeks to appeal each of three separate judgments rendered in the United States District Court¹for the District of North Dakota. One judgment was in favor of the United Bank of Bismarck (the Bank) in its wrongful levy suit against the United States; the second was in favor of the United States in an interpleader action brought to determine rights to certain fire insurance proceeds; and the third judgment dismissed as moot a declaratory judgment action brought by the Bank against these appellants and others seeking to establish lien priorities with respect to other property.

[2] We dismiss the appeals in Nos. 93-1858 and 93-1859 for the reason that those appeals are brought by the trustees of "Crouse 05-27K" and "Golden Honey" or "Knoefler Honey Farms (a Trust)" acting prose. None of the appellant trust is represented in this court by a licensed member of the bar. Both the notices of appeal and the briefs in these appeals were signed by trusteesPage 348acting pro se. A nonlawyer, such as these purported "trustee(s) pro se" has no right to represent another entity, i.e., a trust, in a court of the United States.C.E. Pope Equity Trust v.United States,818 F.2d 696,697-98(9th Cir. 1987) ("He may not claim that his status as trustee includes the right to present arguments pro se in federal court.");28 U.S.C. § 1654.

[3] We also dismiss No. 93-1844 brought by Ray Knoefler, an individual. While Mr. Knoefler does not suffer from the same legal disability as the purported trustees, he cannot appeal the district court's judgment in the wrongful levy suit because he was never a party to it. Nor can he appeal the judgment entered in the insurance proceeds interpleader case because he never made a claim in the district court to any of the insurance proceeds. (SeeAppellee United States of America's Adden., order of the district court, March 1, 1993, determining proper parties.) While he was a named individual defendant in the declaratory judgment action and is entitled to take a pro se appeal from the judgment dismissing that case as moot, all of the arguments he makes in his pro se brief are directed to the issues raised in either the wrongful levy or interpleader actions. He makes no attack on the mootness determination, a dismissal which was to his advantage. Knoefler's attempt in his reply brief to "concede" that the "trusts" are really his "alter egoes [sic]" or nominees is belied by the fact that the purported "trustee(s) pro se" continue in their attempts to represent the trusts by signing and submitting the reply brief.

[4] Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed.

The HONORABLE PATRICK A. CONMY, United States District Judge for the District of North Dakota. ↩