Broom v. United States of America, No. 1:2009cv00189 - Document 2 (N.D. Ga. 2009)

Court Description: ORDER AND OPINION that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice; the Clerk is directed to docket the Affidavit in 1:05-cr-51-WBH. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 1/30/09. (dr)
Download PDF
FILED IN CHAMBEF THOMAS W. THRASH U. S. D. G . Atiante JAN 2 0 2009 J ES N . TTEN ' cirK IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTBr; AM FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA - - ~~P v ~~erc~ ATLANTA DIVISION ANDRE BERNARD BLOOM, Petitioner, CIVIL ACTION NO . 1 :09-CV--TWT V. 1%R UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent . ORDER AND OPINION On January 22, 2009, this Court received a pleading entitled "Affidavit of Reservation of Rights Pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) § 1-308" ("Affidavit") . [Doc. 1] . The Clerk of Court docketed this pleading as a 28 U .S .C . § 2241 petition filed by Andre Bernard Broom ("Broom") . A review of the Affidavit reveals that it was executed by an individual identifying himself as Undra Bernard Broom-El ("Broom-El") . Broom-El references Broom's recent federal criminal proceeding before the Honorable Willis B . Hunt, Jr . (See United States v . Broom, Case No . 1 :05-CR-5I-WBH-1) . In that criminal proceeding, Broom was convicted of using a communication facility to facilitate a conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute cocaine . (Id ., Doc. 8 at 1) . Judge Hunt sentenced Broom to eighty-seven months in prison . (Id., Doc. 8 at 2) . AO 72A (Rev .8/82) Broom-El seeks to claim "Reservation of Rights" pursuant to §§ 1-305 and 1- 103 of Uniform Commercial Code ("UCC") . Broom-El requests that Judge Hunt release his "order of the court" and that this Court "produce the injured party/parties/person/persons, who has filed a verified complaint (International Contract) who was injured as the result o#" Broom's criminal conduct . [Id. at 2-3] . Finally, Broom-El cryptically states that "if this Court is taking jurisdiction in Admiralty, then this Court need to place the contract in evidence so that [Broom-El] may challenge the validity ." [Id.] . This Court initially questions whether Broom-El and Broom are separate individuals . Broom-El states that he is not Broom, but rather "the Third-Party Intervenor" and "Secured Party/Creditor ." [Id. at 2-3] . Court records indicate, however, that the Affidavit was mailed from Broom's current place of residence, the Federal Correctional Institution in Ashland, Kentucky . Other than his name and his purported status as a "Third-Party-Intervenor" and a Secured/Party Creditor, no additional information is provided with respect to Broom-El . This Court will nevertheless assume for purposes of this order that Broom-El and Broom are separate individuals . "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 2 AO 72A (Rev . 6/82) courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein ." 28 U.S.C. § 1654 . This statute, therefore, does not permit non-attorneys to represent other parties . See Meeker v . Kercher, 782 F .2d 153, 154 (10th Cir . 1986). Thus, to the extent that Broom-El and Broom are not the same person, Broom-El cannot bring a federal civil action on behalf of Broom . Furthermore, it does not appear that the Affidavit was intended to be filed as a § 2241 habeas action . Rather than constituting a separate action, Broom-El identifies Broom's federal criminal proceeding at the top of the first page of the Affidavit . Thus, this Court finds that Broom-El intended to file the Affidavit in Broom's federal criminal proceeding . Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDE RED that the instant action is DISMIS SED without prejudice . The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to docket the Affidavit in United States v . Broom, Case No . 1 :05-CR-5I-WBH-1 . IT IS SO ORDERED, this 3v day of , 2009 . THOMAS W . THRASH, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3 AO 72A (Rev .8182)