Free Notice (Other) - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

` Case 3:00-cv-OO6€6;SFlU Document 98 Filed O4/14/2004 Paget of 3
( · · O i
l i
l UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT M __ I
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT F H gm. gi';. _
{
MARSHALL CHAMBERS, } mu APH **1 A [G 2b i
v. , g BRIDGEPURT. CONN
ANTHONY J. PRINCIPI, Secretary, }
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, } April 12, 2004
Defendant }
PLAINTIFF’S BRIEF ON THE ISSUE OF DUAL REPRESENTATION 2
In Status Conference on Wednesday, March 31, 2004, this Court ordered the
parties to brief the issue of whether Plaintiff could file a pro se appearance in E
addition to the appearance of counsel already on tile in his case. Plaintiff had
earlier filed a pro se appearance in addition to the appearance of counsel on file,
as well as his Petition for interlocutory Appeal.
Federal and state laws clearly guarantee parties the right to conduct their own
cases. "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 cases therein." 28 U.S.C. § 1654. This
statutory guarantee has existed since the First Congress. Judiciary Act of 1789, §
35, 1 Stat. 73, 92 (1789). United States v. Plattner (2d Cir. 1964) 330 F.2d 271,
274. Connecticut P.B § 3-8 provides in pertinent part "Whenever a party files
an appearance for himself or herself, and there is already an appearance on
file for that party the party filing the new appearance shall state thereon
whether such appearance is in place of or in addition to the appearance or
appearances already on file".
This right to proceed pro se is not merely statutory, it is a right of constitutional
dimension. (Bayless v. United States (9th Cir. 1967) 381 F.2d 67, 71. See also ,
Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann (1942) 317 U.S. 269, 279, 63 S.Ct. 236,
87 L.Ed. 268 ("Th right to assistance of counsel and the correlative right to
1 l
l

I _ Case 3:00-cv-OO666)SRU Document 98 Filed 0441Ȣ%2004 Page 2 of 3
i \.__ i
I dispense with a lawyer's help are not legal formalisms . . .. [T]he Constitution I
does not force a lawyer upon a defendant."); See United States v. Price, 474
F.2d 1223, 1226, C.A.9, 1973. I
l
However, some courts, in interpreting 28 U.S.C. § 1654, have also held that the I
phrase "the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by I
counsel" means that a person can either proceed pro se or be represented by an *
attorney, but not by both methods--a "hybrid" representation—simuItaneously. I
United States v. Hirschfeld, 911 F.Supp. 200, 201 (E.D.Va.1995)(citations
omitted). i
On the other hand, in Hayes v. Warden Hawes, 921 F.2d 100 (1990) the Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that while there is no Sixth Amendment right
to file a pro se brief when the defendant is represented by counsel, nothing I
precluded the Appellate Court in that case from accepting the pro se brief and
considering the arguments contained therein. I
l
l There are also numerous, documented cases of lawyers representing
themselves pro se in litigation despite the strictures against doing so. Courts I
have never rejected their appearances or their filings in such cases. To the I
extent that a lawyer is permitted to represent himself pro se, (and appears both
as a "party" and as "counsel" at the same time), arguably, a party with paralegal
training, should also be permitted to exercise his or her right of self-
representation, regardless of the reasons for and conventional wisdom against I
doing so.

Thus, in the instant case, Plaintiff Chambers has filed a pro se appearance and a
Petition for interlocutory Appeal. His appearance, he designated, as in addition
to the appearance of counsel, already on file. He has clearly stated his intention I
to appeal this Court’s decision(s) concerning specific issues in his case. His I
l

2

I I I nnnn ;m——_“——%_I
I Case 3:00-cv-OOGSGISRU Document 98 Filed O4?~4{2004 Page 3 of 3 I
a 0 " c` I
i appearance is therefore proper in this case, and his submissions should be fairly I
I accepted and considered by both the District and the Appeal Court. I
I Moreover, Plaintiff Chambers, as previously stated, is indigent. lf for whatever
reason he is unable either to represent himself, or to find representation on his
own, or if this Court should somehow decide to strike his appearance for I
whatever reason, the issue becomes whether the District Court should appoint
counsel to prosecute his interlocutory Appeal. In such circumstances, Plaintiff I
may seek, and the District Court should be required to appoint counsel, for I
PIaintiff’s interlocutory Appeal, unless Plaintiff requests otherwise. I
Respectfully submitted, I
PLAINTIFF, MARSHALL CHAMBERS
CAL M. PTLGRI , ESQ. I
LAW OFFICES OF CALEB M. I
1-·1Lc1z1M, LLC
1404 WHALLEY AVENUE, 2ND FLOOR I
NEW HAVEN, CT 06515 I
(203) 387-2524
FEDERAL BAR NO. CT 14857
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was ailed to Attorney Lauren
Nash, AUSA, U.S. Department of Iustice, 1 ` urch Stree aven, CT
1 A i1 12, 2004. ,,
065 0 on pr cad wg Wn hn I
ALEB M. P ` GRIM, ESQ. I
!
l
l
3
l
-·-··»»..·······-·--······-···-··