Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00437/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00437-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Ammon M. Sprau, II, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

City of Surprise; Surprise Police 

Department, 

Defendants. 

No. CV-12-437-PHX-GMS

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Preclude Ammon M. Sprau 

from Practicing Law without a License. (Doc. 9). Defendants also request the Court to 

preclude Ammon M. Sprau II from litigating on his own behalf. (Doc. 9). For the 

reasons discussed below, the Court grants Defendants’ Motion to Preclude Ammon M. 

Sprau from Practicing Law without a License and denies the request to preclude Ammon 

M. Sprau II from litigating pro se. 

BACKGROUND 

 On January 31, 2012, Plaintiff filed his amended complaint against Defendants in 

the Maricopa County Superior Court alleging violations of his Constitutional rights. 

(Doc. 1, Ex. 2). On May 10, 2012, Defendants alleged that Ammon M. Sprau (Mr. 

Sprau) has been acting as a legal representative for his son Ammon M. Sprau II (Sprau 

II). (Doc. 9). Plaintiff denies these allegations. It appears Mr. Sprau may have assisted 

Case 2:12-cv-00437-GMS Document 20 Filed 06/04/12 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

in the preparation of the original complaint filed December 20, 2011 in the Maricopa 

County Superior Court. (Doc. 1, Ex. 1). Mr. Sprau may or may not have assisted in the 

preparation and filing of Sprau II’s subsequent pleadings. While it is not certain whether 

Sprau II has been acting on his own behalf, it is certain the privilege to represent one’s 

self does not create a privilege to be represented by a third-party non-attorney. See

McShane v. United States, 366 F.2d 286, 288 (9th Cir. 1966). 

DISCUSSION 

I. Legal Standard 

 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1654, “parties may plead and conduct their own cases 

personally.” In an action brought by a pro se litigant, the real party in interest must be the 

person who “has the right to be enforced.” Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 

664 (9th Cir. 2008). The Arizona Supreme Court has held that an attorney in fact, not 

licensed to practice law, cannot represent anyone other than himself. Hunt Inv. Co. v. 

Eliot, 154 Ariz. 357, 362, 742 P.2d 858, 863 (Ct. App. 1987) (citing Mosher v. Hiner, 62 

Ariz. 110, 113—14, 154 P.2d 372, 374 (1944)). 

II. Analysis 

 A. Motion to Preclude Mr. Sprau from Practicing Law without a License 

Mr. Sprau is not a licensed attorney and is therefore precluded from practicing law 

in the State of Arizona on behalf of his adult son. A litigant may be his own attorney, but 

a layman cannot practice law on another’s behalf. Mosher, 62 Ariz. at 113—14. Rule 

31(a) of the Supreme Court of Arizona defines practicing law as “providing legal advice 

or services to or for another by” preparing documents, legal opinions, representing 

another in a proceeding or other formal dispute resolution process, or negotiating legal 

rights for a specific person (other than one’s self). Mr. Sprau, a third-party non-attorney, 

is therefore prohibited from performing any of the aforementioned functions on behalf of 

Sprau II. 

B. Request to Preclude Sprau II from Litigating Pro Se 

 Sprau II may continue to litigate his case pro se. One who acts on his own behalf 

Case 2:12-cv-00437-GMS Document 20 Filed 06/04/12 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

is not engaged in the practice of law. See Hunt, 154 Ariz. at 362. However, pro se 

litigants are subject to the same good faith limitations imposed on lawyers, as officers of 

the court. United States v. Flewitt, 874 F.2d 669, 675 (9th Cir. 1989). 

CONCLUSION 

 For the reasons stated above, Ammon M. Sprau will not represent Ammon M. 

Sprau II in this matter. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Preclude Ammon 

M. Sprau from Practicing Law without a License (Doc. 9) is GRANTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Stop Harassment (Doc. 

16) is DENIED AS MOOT. 

 Dated this 4th day of June, 2012. 

Case 2:12-cv-00437-GMS Document 20 Filed 06/04/12 Page 3 of 3