Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-15-03933/USCOURTS-ca3-15-03933-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Christopher Ferguson
Appellant
John Ferguson
Not Party
Warden Schuylkill FCI
Appellee

Document Text:

ALD-222 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 15-3933

___________

JOHN FERGUSON

v.

WARDEN SCHUYLKILL FCI; RUSSELL C. HENDERSHOT, HEALTH 

SERVICE ADMINISTRATOR; KIMBERLY ASK-CARLSON, DEPUTY 

WARDEN; EILEEN FALZINI, HEALTH SERVICE ADMINISTRATOR; 

PATRICK BURNS, EMERGENCY MEDICAL TECHNICIAN; KEVIN 

CHRISTELEIT, CASE MANAGER; JOSEPH RUSH, PHYSICIAN'S 

ASSISTANT; BRIGIDA ZABALA, PHYSICIAN'S ASSISTANT; FEDERAL 

BUREAU OF PRISONS, AND VARIOUS UNKNOWN AGENTS AND 

EMPLOYEES OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS WHOSE NAMES 

AND ADDRESSES ARE UNKNOWN AND UNDISCOVERABLE AT THIS TIME

 *Christopher Ferguson,

 Appellant

 *(Pursuant to Rule 12(a), Fed. R. App. P.)

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civ. No. 1-10-cv-02638)

District Judge: Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

April 14, 2016

Before: AMBRO, SHWARTZ and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: April 21, 2016)

Case: 15-3933 Document: 003112270229 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2016
2

_________

OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

Christopher Ferguson appeals from the District Court’s denial of his motion for 

relief under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We will affirm.

I.

Christopher Ferguson’s father, John Ferguson, was a federal prisoner who has 

passed away. John Ferguson previously filed suit against numerous prison officials and 

health care providers asserting claims based on his cataracts and anxiety disorder. The 

District Court entered summary judgment against him on July 30, 2013. His deadline to 

appeal that ruling expired on September 30, 2013. He succumbed to pancreatic cancer 

four days later. All references to “Ferguson” hereafter are to John Ferguson’s son, 

Christopher. 

In January of 2014, Pamela Kay Varnam filed a suggestion of death and a motion 

to substitute Ferguson for his father as the plaintiff pursuant to Rule 25.1(a) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Varnam stated that Ferguson had given her power of 

attorney, and she purported to proceed on his behalf as his attorney-in-fact. In her 

declaration, she acknowledged that “I am not an attorney at law.” (ECF No. 77 at 4 ¶ 

25.) The District Court called for briefing on Varnam’s motion and, after receiving it, 

ordered the motion stricken. The District Court did so because it concluded that 

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.

Case: 15-3933 Document: 003112270229 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/21/2016
3

Varnam, despite the power of attorney, cannot represent Ferguson pro se in federal court.

Nine months later, Ferguson filed pro se the Rule 60(b) motion at issue here and 

an accompanying declaration and brief. In his motion, he requested that the District 

Court set aside its order striking Varnam’s motion and decide it on the merits. In his 

declaration and brief, he expressly adopted all of Varnam’s filings as his own. (ECF Nos. 

103 at 2 ¶ 12; 104 at 5, 7.) The District Court denied Ferguson’s Rule 60(b) motion on 

the ground that he merely sought reconsideration of its prior order striking Varnam’s 

motion and that its prior ruling was correct. Ferguson appeals.1

II.

The District Court correctly concluded that Varnam, a non-attorney, cannot 

represent Ferguson pro se in federal court. See Osei-Afriyie v. Med. Coll. of Pa., 937 

F.2d 876, 882-83 (3d Cir. 1991). That is so even though Varnam purported to proceed 

under a power of attorney. See Powerserve Int’l, Inc. v. Lavi, 239 F.3d 508, 511, 514 (2d 

Cir. 2001); Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997). Thus, to 

the extent that Ferguson merely requested that the District Court reconsider its order 

striking Varnam’s motion, we agree that there was no basis to do so.

Ferguson, however, also expressly adopted all of Varnam’s filings as his own and

 

1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the District Court’s 

denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for abuse of discretion. See Jackson v. Danberg, 656 F.3d 

157, 162 (3d Cir. 2011). To the extent that Ferguson’s Rule 60(b) motion may be 

construed as a motion for substitution under Rule 25.1(a), we review the denial of such 

motions for abuse of discretion as well. See Giles v. Campbell, 698 F.3d 153, 155 (3d 

Cir. 2012).

Case: 15-3933 Document: 003112270229 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/21/2016
4

asked that his request for substitution be decided on the merits. To that extent, the 

District Court arguably should have treated Ferguson’s Rule 60(b) motion along with 

Varnam’s motion as itself a motion for substitution under Rule 25.1(a). Cf.

Anderson v. Republic Motor Inns, Inc., 444 F.2d 87, 88-89 (3d Cir. 1971) (permitting a 

counseled statement in a pretrial memorandum to serve as a Rule 25.1(a) motion). 

Nevertheless, we need not remand for further consideration of Ferguson’s motion 

because there is no basis to grant it. Ferguson does not allege that his father’s claims 

belong solely to him. To the contrary, according to Varnam’s brief in support of her 

motion, John Ferguson also has a biological daughter. Varnam asserts that “both [of] 

John Ferguson’s biological children . . . are successors and rightful heirs to John 

Ferguson’s estate” and “are both the primary beneficiaries of his unprobated intestate 

estate.” (ECF No. 79 at 3, 7.) Ferguson does not allege that he has any interest in his 

father’s claims apart from his interest in his father’s estate, which he shares with his 

sister, and we cannot conceive of any such interest. Just as Varnam is prohibited from 

representing Ferguson pro se, so too is Ferguson prohibited from representing his father’s 

estate and the interests of his sister pro se. That would be so even if Ferguson were 

named the executor of his father’s estate, which he does not allege. See Simon v. 

Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664-65 (9th Cir. 2008) (collecting cases). Thus, 

Ferguson may not seek to substitute a party for his father as the plaintiff by filing a 

motion for substitution pro se.2

 

2 Varnam’s/Ferguson’s motion for substitution appears problematic in other respects as 

well. For example, Varnam states that Ferguson himself is a convicted felon incarcerated 

Case: 15-3933 Document: 003112270229 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/21/2016
5

III.

For these reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.

 

in North Carolina and that North Carolina law prohibits him from serving as his father’s 

representative. (ECF No. 78 at 3 ¶ 19.) In light of our disposition, however, we need not 

address that issue or any other.

Case: 15-3933 Document: 003112270229 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/21/2016