Pollock, Jr. v. Kallis
- David Doty
- 0:20-cv-00359
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Pollock, Jr. v. Kallis, Judge Thorson denied reconsideration and sanctions after a nonlawyer signed filings for Pollock.
Charles W. Pollock, Jr., whose reconsideration and sanctions requests were denied; Warden S. Kallis, Jill Slegh, Jeremy Nerdstadt, and their counsel, whose request for more response time was upheld.
What happened
In Pollock, Jr. v. Kallis, Charles W. Pollock, Jr., who was representing himself, asked the court to reconsider its decision to strike two documents signed by a third party. He also asked the court to sanction the respondents and their lawyers for seeking more time to respond to his petition.
The court said federal law and court rules generally require a self-represented party to sign documents personally. It rejected Pollock’s argument that pandemic restrictions justified allowing his “paralegal” to file documents for him, finding no indication that Pollock was unable to represent himself because of mental incompetence. The court also found nothing misleading about the respondents’ request for more time.
Judge Thorson denied Pollock’s motion to reconsider and separately denied his request for sanctions. The order did not decide the underlying petition’s merits.
The detailed version
- Pollock, Jr. v. Kallis · No. 0:20-cv-00359
- David Doty
- July 13, 2020
Background
The court considered Charles W. Pollock, Jr.’s motion to reconsider an earlier order dated June 12, 2020. That earlier order struck two documents submitted for Pollock but signed by Gregory A. Scher, whom Pollock described as his “paralegal.” Pollock was representing himself, and the respondents were represented by counsel.
Pollock argued that the court had erred in striking the documents. He said COVID-19 restrictions had made it inconvenient for him to consult with Scher. Pollock also asked the court to impose sanctions on the respondents and their counsel for requesting an extension of time to respond to his petition. He characterized the extension request as misleading.
Court’s reasoning
The court relied on 28 U.S.C. § 1654 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a), which require a written pleading to be signed by a lawyer of record or, when a party represents himself, by that party personally. The court said an exception in Rule 17(c)(2) did not apply to Pollock’s situation.
Pollock cited a prior decision involving a lawyer’s attempt to file a petition for a prisoner as a “next friend.” The court explained that such filings are allowed only when the person seeking relief clearly cannot do so personally or is mentally incompetent. The court found no indication in this record that Pollock was mentally incompetent. It also noted that Pollock had personally signed every paper he filed in the case except the two documents already struck, including the motion to reconsider. The court therefore found no justification for allowing another person to file papers on Pollock’s behalf as a “next friend.”
Regarding sanctions, the court reviewed the respondents’ request for additional time, which cited the Bureau of Prisons’ workload involving compassionate-release requests during the COVID-19 pandemic. The court concluded that the request was not misleading and observed that the described requests were ongoing and a matter of public record.
Ruling
Judge Becky R. Thorson denied Pollock’s motion to reconsider. The court separately denied Pollock’s request for sanctions. The order stated that Pollock could request additional time in the future if circumstances beyond his control prevented him from meeting a deadline. The order addressed the filing and sanctions issues; it did not decide the merits of the underlying petition.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.