477 F. App'x 9
3rd Cir.2012Background
- Faison Williams filed a Federal Tort Claims Act wrongful-death/survivor action against the United States on behalf of her father Louis T. Faison, Sr., purporting to proceed under a power of attorney for her deceased brother Louis T. Faison, Jr.
- The District Court granted counsel’s withdrawal and then allowed Williams to litigate pro se on her father’s behalf, with the filings bearing only her name.
- The District Court later granted summary judgment for the United States, holding that neither Williams nor the administrator of Louis Faison, Jr.’s estate had standing to pursue theaction under Pennsylvania law.
- The administrator of the estate (Louis Faison, Sr.’s wife, Veta Faison) had filed a separate action that was pending, and Williams’ appeal was pursued without proper representation by counsel for the father.
- The Clerk of the Third Circuit notified Williams that she could not represent her father pro se and required the father to sign and participate, which he did not.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Williams or Sr. is a proper party on appeal | Williams argues pro se representation is permissible under her POA | United States contends only counsel or the proper party may appeal | Remand required; pro se representation of the father was improper |
| Whether the district court improperly allowed pro se representation after withdrawing counsel | Williams contends merits review should proceed for her father | Court lacked authority to reach merits without proper representation | Vacate judgment and remand for appointment of counsel or other steps to ensure proper representation |
| Whether the court has jurisdiction to review related, separate action appealing a magistrate's recommendation | Williams seeks review in this appeal | Jurisdiction absent; must challenge via district court | Declined to treat as direct appeal; appropriate remedies in the proper action |
Key Cases Cited
- Osei-Afriyie v. Med. Coll. of Pa., 937 F.2d 876 (3d Cir. 1991) (parent/guardian cannot litigate pro se for others; individuals must be represented by counsel in federal court)
- Becker v. Montgomery, 532 U.S. 757 (S. Ct. 2001) (pro se status and representation requirements for appeal)
- Estate of Keatinge v. Biddle, 316 F.3d 7 (1st Cir. 2002) (POA holders cannot represent grantors in federal litigation)
- Powerserve Int’l, Inc. v. Lavi, 239 F.3d 508 (2d Cir. 2001) (attorney-in-fact may not litigate pro se for another)