Bulmer v. Heal (In Re Heal), 442 B.R. 137

Bulmer, pro se, filed an adversary proceeding; Heal moved to dismiss for unauthorized practice of law.
Bulmer admitted he was not an attorney and had purchased the claim for ten dollars; Appellate Panel vacated the dismissal and ordered a full hearing.
Bulmer is the assignee of a judgment originally entered in state court against Timothy Pelzel, not Heal; the underlying judgment is Guidiville Rancheria v. Pelzel (1998).
Assignments chain: Guidiville Rancheria judgment -> Summit Judgment Recovery -> California Judgment Recoveries, LLC -> Bulmer (by January 2, 2003 assignment signed by Bulmer’s wife).
Separate claim by Flexible Funding, LLC was assigned to Bulmer; Bulmer sought default judgment against Pelzel in his own name.
The court found the form used for both assignments was an assignment for collection, rendering Bulmer a collection agent and barred from prosecuting without counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1654.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Bulmer may prosecute this adversary pro se as an assignee.	Bulmer as assignee should proceed without a lawyer.	Under 28 U.S.C. § 1654 a non-attorney may not prosecute in a case that benefits third parties without counsel.	Bulmer must proceed with counsel; pleadings stricken if filed pro se.
Whether the assignment constitutes an absolute assignment or an assignment for collection.	Assignments are absolute transfers of the claim.	Assignments are for collection, not exclusive personal action by Bulmer.	Court held the agreements functioned as assignments for collection.
Whether there is a constitutional right to self-representation in civil cases in this context.	Bulmer has a right to represent himself in civil matters.	There is no constitutional right to self-representation in civil cases; courts may restrict practice.	No constitutional right to self-representation; representation by counsel required.
Whether Bulmer, as an assignee, may file pleadings without counsel and avoid sanctions.	Bulmer should be allowed to file pro se as assignee.	Non-attorneys filing pleadings without authorization may be stricken.	Pleadings filed by Bulmer are subject to being stricken; counsel required.

C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. U.S., 818 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1987) (non-attorney may not appear if third-party benefits are involved; 28 U.S.C. §1654 context)
Jones v. Correctional Medical Services, Inc., 401 F.3d 950 (8th Cir. 2005) (self-representation limitations in civil actions)
Pridgen v. Andresen, 113 F.3d 391 (2d Cir. 1997) (assignee representation constraints in federal cases)
Palazzo v. Gulf Oil Corp., 764 F.2d 1381 (11th Cir. 1985) (assignment of claims cannot circumvent representation rules)
Jones v. Niagara Frontier Trans. Auth., 722 F.2d 20 (2d Cir. 1983) (assignment structure and representation considerations)
Adams v. Thomas, 387 B.R. 808 (D. Colo. 2008) (analysis of assignment and representative capacity in bankruptcy)
In re Ota, 192 B.R. 545 (9th Cir. BAP 1996) (issues surrounding who may represent a claimant)
In re Boyajian, 367 B.R. 138 (9th Cir. BAP 2007) (pro se representation limits for assignees)