From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mansfield Transmission Center, Inc., v. Internal Revenue

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio
Mar 4, 2002
Case No. 1:02 CV 402 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 4, 2002)

Opinion

Case No. 1:02 CV 402

March 4, 2002


MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER


On March 4, 2002, this in forma pauperis action was filed in the name of Mansfield Transmission Center, Inc. (Mansfield Transmission), by Kathleen Tallman, who is identified as Secretary of Mansfield Transmission, against the Internal Revenue Service. The complaint alleges that defendant did not set a tax hearing, in response to a 1993 Mansfield Transmission request, until 2001. It is further alleged that this delay resulted in excessive interest and penalties against Mansfield Transmission.

In general, a party may plead and conduct its case in person or through counsel. See 28 U.S.C. § 1654; Eagle Associates v. Bank of Montreal, 926 F.2d 1305, 1308 (2d Cir. 1991). Because corporations and non-incorporated organizations are artificial entities which exist only as legal fiction, they can act only through their authorized agents. Id. at 1310. Consequently, these entities cannot appear pro se in any litigation and are required to appear in court through an attorney. Paris v. Herman, No. 99-5338, 2000 WL 571932 at *2 (6th Cir. May 3, 2000); Eagle, 926 F.2d at 1310. There is no indication that Ms. Tallman is a licensed attorney authorized to represent Mansfield Transmission.

128 U.S.C. § 1654 provides:

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.

See also, Brown v. Internal Revenue Service, 172 F.3d 47 (6th Cir. 1998); AAA Venetian Blind Sales, No. 9601108, 1997 WL 476517 at *2 (6th Cir. Aug. 19, 1997), Kinder Capital v. Unity Community, No. 95-1542, 1996 WL 229819 (6th Cir. May 6, 1996); Church of the New Testament v. U.S., 783 F.2d 771, 773 (9th Cir. 1985); Doherty v. American Motors Corporation, 728 F.2d 334, 340 (6th Cir. 1984); Ginger v. Cohn, 426 F.2d 1385, 1386 (6th Cir. 1970); Move Organization v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 555 F. Supp. 684, 692 (E.D. Pa. 1983).

Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted and this action is dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e). Further, the court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(3) that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith.


Summaries of

Mansfield Transmission Center, Inc., v. Internal Revenue

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio
Mar 4, 2002
Case No. 1:02 CV 402 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 4, 2002)
Case details for

Mansfield Transmission Center, Inc., v. Internal Revenue

Case Details

Full title:MANSFIELD TRANSMISSION CENTER, INC., Plaintiff, v. INTERNAL REVENUE…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Ohio

Date published: Mar 4, 2002

Citations

Case No. 1:02 CV 402 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 4, 2002)