Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-08-02738/USCOURTS-ca8-08-02738-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-2738

___________

City of Kansas City, Missouri, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western

* District of Missouri.

Housing & Economic Development *

Financial Corporation, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee, *

*

David Bahner, *

*

Appellee, *

*

------------------------------------------- *

*

Warren Watkins, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 22, 2010

Filed: February 25, 2010

___________

Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 08-2738 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/25/2010 Entry ID: 3638190
1

The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

-2-

Appearing pro se, Warren Watkins appeals from the district court’s1

 orders

denying pleadings that he filed on behalf of Monarch Community Improvement

Council (Monarch). As a preliminary matter, we have an independent obligation to

consider our own jurisdiction. See Thomas v. Basham, 931 F.2d 521, 522-23 (8th Cir.

1991). We conclude that the pleadings Watkins filed were not properly before the

district court, see Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 202-03 (1993)

(artificial entities may appear in federal courts only through licensed attorneys); the

notice of appeal, which Watkins purported to file pro se on Monarch’s behalf, was

ineffective to perfect this appeal, see United States v. Van Stelton, 988 F.2d 70, 70

(8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (corporation that was not represented by counsel was not

party to appeal; corporation cannot appear pro se); and Watkins lacks standing to

present arguments on his own behalf on appeal, see United States v. Northshore

Mining Co., 576 F.3d 840, 847 (8th Cir. 2009) (examining whether party was

aggrieved by district court’s order, such that appellate court had jurisdiction over

appeal); City of Clarkson Valley v. Mineta, 495 F.3d 567, 569 (8th Cir. 2007)

(standing is jurisdictional prerequisite that must be resolved before reaching merits of

suit). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 08-2738 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/25/2010 Entry ID: 3638190