901 F.3d 169
3rd Cir.2018Background
- Decedent Albert Purnell II was killed by Philadelphia police officers; he died intestate and his minor daughter is the sole beneficiary of his estate.
- Tracy Murray (the decedent’s mother) obtained letters of administration and, through counsel, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force; claims against two officers proceeded to trial and the jury favored the officers.
- After trial, Murray filed a pro se notice of appeal even though she had been represented by counsel in the district court.
- The Third Circuit appointed pro bono amicus counsel to brief whether a non-attorney administrator who is not a beneficiary may represent an estate pro se on appeal.
- The court held that a non-attorney, non-beneficiary administrator may not litigate on behalf of an estate pro se and dismissed Murray’s appeal; ancillary motions (appointment of counsel, transcript at government expense) were denied as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a non‑attorney administrator who is not a beneficiary may represent an estate pro se on appeal | Murray argued she may proceed pro se as administrator of the estate | Appellees argued that § 1654 does not permit non‑attorneys to represent others and an administrator who is not a beneficiary cannot represent the estate pro se | Held: A non‑attorney, non‑beneficiary administrator may not represent an estate pro se; appeal dismissed |
| Whether the case qualifies as the administrator’s "own case" under 28 U.S.C. § 1654 | Murray implied the estate suit is her own because she is administrator | Appellees and court: where other beneficiaries/creditors exist, the suit is not the administrator’s personal case | Held: Not the administrator’s own if beneficiaries/creditors have interests; § 1654 does not authorize pro se representation by non‑attorney administrator |
| Whether practical or equitable considerations justify allowing pro se representation here | Murray’s familial relationship and asserted zeal for the estate’s claims | Appellees stressed need for legal training, ethical duties, malpractice accountability, and protection of beneficiary interests | Held: Practical concerns support requiring counsel; non‑attorney representation risks harm to the estate/beneficiaries |
| Whether Murray’s motions for appointment of counsel and transcripts should be granted | Murray sought appointed counsel and transcripts at government expense to proceed | Appellees opposed given procedural posture and inability to proceed pro se | Held: Motions dismissed as moot after dismissal of the appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Osei-Afriyie v. Med. Coll. of Pa., 937 F.2d 876 (3d Cir. 1991) (non‑lawyer may not act as attorney for others in federal court)
- Collingsgro v. Palmyra Bd. of Educ., 161 F.3d 225 (3d Cir. 1998) (reiterating rule barring non‑attorneys from representing others; discusses ethical role of attorneys)
- Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194 (1993) (§ 1654 does not allow entities to appear except through counsel)
- Phillips v. Tobin, 548 F.2d 408 (2d Cir. 1976) (non‑attorney may not conduct shareholder derivative suit pro se)
- Pridgen v. Andresen, 113 F.3d 391 (2d Cir. 1997) (administrator may not proceed pro se when estate has other beneficiaries or creditors)
- Jones ex rel. Jones v. Corr. Med. Servs., Inc., 401 F.3d 950 (8th Cir. 2005) (same rule: non‑attorney administrator cannot litigate estate claims where others have interests)
- Rodgers v. Lancaster Police & Fire Dep’t, 819 F.3d 205 (5th Cir. 2016) (discusses limits on pro se estate representation; notes exception when administrator is sole beneficiary and no creditors)
- Malone v. Nielson, 474 F.3d 934 (7th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (administrator who is not sole beneficiary may not represent estate pro se)
- Shepherd v. Wellman, 313 F.3d 963 (6th Cir. 2002) (same principle applied)
- Reshard v. Britt, 839 F.2d 1499 (11th Cir. 1988) (en banc) (affirming that estate representatives cannot proceed pro se when estate has other beneficiaries)