Vaughn v. City of Flint, 83-1368
Decision Date | 23 January 1985 |
Docket Number | No. 83-1368,83-1368 |
Parties | Mendell VAUGHN, et al., Plaintiffs, Julius R. Smith, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The CITY OF FLINT, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Julius R. Smith, Flint, Mich., for plaintiff-appellant.
Valdemar L. Washington, Jerome O'Rourke, Flint, Mich., for defendant-appellee.
Before LIVELY, Chief Judge; ENGEL, Circuit Judge; and WEICK, Senior Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal by a non-party from a summary adjudication of criminal contempt. The appellant filed a pro se brief in this court and the case was submitted without oral argument. The attorneys who represented the parties in the district court, and who made the motion that appellant be found in contempt, declined to file briefs or appear in this court.
The appellant, Julius R. Smith, is a former councilman of the City of Flint, Michigan. He is not an attorney. During his tenure on the City Council the district court entered a consent decree in an action involving the purchase of real estate by the City from residents of an area known as Oak Park. The Oak Park residents, plaintiffs in that action in which the City of Flint was defendant, were represented by attorneys, Valdemar Washington and Gregory Gibbs. Sometime after entry of the consent decree a number of Oak Park residents concluded that the City was not following the terms of the decree in acquiring property and sought the assistance of Smith, their former councilman.
On August 5, 1982 Smith filed a "Complaint and Request for Temporary restraining order and declaratory judgment" in the district court. This pleading was signed by Smith, "Representing residents," and bore the case number and style of the action in which the consent decree had been entered. At the same time Smith filed a written entry of appearance with the clerk of the district court. On August 26 attorneys Washington and Gibbs filed a motion to "dismiss" all pleadings and papers filed by Smith and to enjoin him from the further practice of law. The motion was accompanied by a notice of hearing and brief. On August 31 Smith filed new pleadings and a notice of hearing on a motion for a temporary restraining order. The new papers, though restructured, made the same basic claim as the ones filed previously. The only substantial change was that two of the Oak Park residents, plaintiffs in the original action, signed this complaint and notice as parties proceeding without representation.
A hearing was set on all motions for September 9 and the clerk notified Smith along with all the attorneys who had appeared in the original action. When the court opened the September 9 hearing by asking if the parties were ready, after the attorneys for the plaintiffs and the defendant identified themselves, Smith announced: Attorney Washington then requested the court to strike the pleadings prepared by Smith in accordance with the previous motion. In addition, he asked the court to find Smith in contempt of court for engaging in unauthorized practice of law contrary to a Michigan statute. The following colloquy between the court and Smith then took place:
Attorney Washington then stated that he had informed the dissatisfied Oak Park residents that he represented the entire class and could not represent individual residents who felt aggrieved. He said he had advised those class members who were dissatisfied to seek competent counsel to represent them and file a motion in the district court "seeking its direction." Washington thereafter renewed the motion to strike the pleadings and hold Smith in contempt.
In response to attorney Washington's motion the district court then found that Smith had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by preparing and filing pleadings on behalf of others and by his appearance at the hearing. After noting Michigan statutes governing the practice of law the court read into the record its local rule 12(f):
Any person who, while not duly admitted to the Bar of this Court, or during his...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Grogan
...States v. Time, 21 F.3d 635, 641 (5th Cir.1994); United States v. McGainey, 37 F.3d 682, 684 (D.C.Cir.1994); Vaughn v. City of Flint, 752 F.2d 1160, 1168 (6th Cir.1985). There is authority for the proposition that this element is implicated only when the summary contempt power permitted und......
-
Taberer v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc.
...92 L.Ed. 682 (1948); Cooke v. United States, 267 U.S. 517, 536, 45 S.Ct. 390, 395, 69 L.Ed. 767 (1925). See also Vaughn v. City of Flint, 752 F.2d 1160, 1167 (6th Cir.1985) (explaining obstruction requirement as limitation on summary contempt power). A comparison of two particular Supreme C......
-
Weidt v. State
...v. Straub, 508 F.3d 1003, 1012 (11th Cir.2007); Hubbard v. Fleet Mortg. Co., 810 F.2d 778, 781 (8th Cir.1987); Vaughn v. City of Flint, 752 F.2d 1160, 1169 (6th Cir.1985); Falstaff Brewing Corp. v. Miller Brewing Co., 702 F.2d 770, 782 (9th Cir.1983); Cont'l Ins. Companies v. Bayless & Robe......
-
United States v. Aleo
...misbehavior occurred in the presence of the court, and (4) that the defendant acted with the intent to obstruct. Vaughn v. City of Flint, 752 F.2d 1160, 1167 (6th Cir.1985). The government stated Freeman's erroneous reading of the CVRA did not obstruct justice, because the government never ......