Roselyne Laguille-Brugman v. United States

USCA11 Case: 23-12064 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 12/14/2023 Page: 1 of 7
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-12064
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
ROSELYNE LAGUILLE-BRUGMAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 8:21-cv-01064-CEH-JSS
____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-12064 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 12/14/2023 Page: 2 of 7
2 Opinion of the Court 23-12064
Before ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Roselyne Laguille-Brugman, as personal repre-
sentative of her deceased husband’s estate, filed a wrongful death
action against the United States and sought to proceed pro se. The
district court ordered that she could not proceed pro se and in-
structed her to obtain counsel. When she failed to obtain counsel,
the district court dismissed the action without prejudice. After care-
ful consideration, we affirm.
I.
Laguille-Brugman was married to Cort Brugman, a disabled
veteran. While Brugman was hospitalized in an intensive care unit
at a Department of Veterans Affairs facility, he developed sepsis
and died. Laguille-Brugman sued the United States under the Fed-
eral Tort Claims Act, alleging that Brugman’s death was caused by
the negligence of the physicians and nurses who treated him. She
initially filed the complaint in her own name, proceeding pro se.
The United States moved to dismiss, arguing that a claim for
wrongful death must be brought by the personal representative of
Brugman’s estate. The district court agreed. The court explained
that Laguille-Brugman could “not bring this suit in her own name
for the alleged wrongful death of her husband.” Doc. 26 at 3. 1
1 “Doc.” numbers refer to the district court’s docket entries.
USCA11 Case: 23-12064 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 12/14/2023 Page: 3 of 7
23-12064 Opinion of the Court 3
Instead, the personal representative of Brugman’s estate had to
bring the wrongful death claim for the benefit of Brugman’s survi-
vors or his estate. The district court dismissed the complaint. But
it did so without prejudice and gave Laguille-Brugman the oppor-
tunity to open an estate, be appointed personal representative of
the estate, retain counsel, and file an amended complaint that sub-
stituted the personal representative as plaintiff. The court cau-
tioned that if Laguille-Brugman were appointed personal repre-
sentative of the estate and chose to file an amended complaint, she
would need to retain counsel and could not bring an action as per-
sonal representative while proceeding pro se.
After a Florida court appointed Laguille-Brugman as the per-
sonal representative of Brugman’s estate, she filed an amended
complaint in her capacity as personal representative, bringing a
wrongful death claim “on behalf of the estate” and Brugman’s
“other . . . survivors.” Doc. 27 at 2. According to the amended com-
plaint, there were two potential beneficiaries of the estate who
would share in any recovery: Laguille-Brugman and Brugman’s
adult child born during an earlier marriage.2
The district court struck the amended complaint. The court
acknowledged that a party to a federal lawsuit generally may
choose to represent herself or proceed with counsel. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1654. But it explained that the right to self-representation “does
not extend to representing someone else or an entity.” Doc. 28 at
2 The amended complaint alleged that, although the child’s birth certificate
listed Brugman as the father, Brugman denied that he was the child’s father.
USCA11 Case: 23-12064 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 12/14/2023 Page: 4 of 7
4 Opinion of the Court 23-12064
2 (internal quotation marks omitted). The district court observed
that in the amended complaint Laguille-Brugman sought to repre-
sent both “an entity (the estate) and someone else (the other survi-
vor[]).” Id. Because she could “not represent the estate and the in-
terests of the other survivor[] pro se,” she was required to retain
counsel. Id. at 4.
The court gave Laguille-Brugman 30 days to retain counsel,
warning that if she failed to retain counsel the action would be dis-
missed without prejudice. The court twice extended the deadline
for retaining counsel. Although Laguille-Brugman consulted with
numerous attorneys, she was unable to find one who would take
the case. Because she failed to comply with the order to obtain
counsel, the district court dismissed the action without prejudice.
This is Laguille-Brugman’s appeal. 3
II.
We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s dismissal
for failure to comply with a court order. Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v.
M/V Monada, 432 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2005). We review de
novo questions of statutory interpretation. Timson v. Sampson,
518 F.3d 870, 872 (11th Cir. 2008).
III.
3 After the district court dismissed the action, an attorney appeared for La-
guille-Brugman and represents her on appeal.
USCA11 Case: 23-12064 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 12/14/2023 Page: 5 of 7
23-12064 Opinion of the Court 5
In federal court, a party may proceed either pro se or with
representation by counsel. See 28 U.S.C. § 1654 (providing that in
federal court “parties may plead and conduct their own cases per-
sonally or by counsel”). Although a party may represent herself pro
se, a non-attorney may not represent other parties in federal court.
See Devine v. Indian River Cnty. Sch. Bd., 121 F.3d 576, 581–82 (11th
Cir. 1997), overruled in part on other grounds by Winkelman ex rel. Win-
kelman v. Parma City Sch. Dist., 550 U.S. 516 (2007).
On appeal, Laguille-Brugman argues that the district court
erred in concluding that she could not proceed pro se and needed to
retain counsel. We disagree. Because she brought the wrongful
death action as the personal representative of Brugman’s estate,
our recent decision in Iriele v. Griffin, 65 F.4th 1280 (11th Cir. 2023),
compels us to conclude that she could not proceed pro se.
In Iriele, we considered whether a litigant could proceed pro
se in an action brought on behalf of his mother’s estate against fed-
eral prison officials alleging that the officials’ deliberate indifference
caused his mother’s death. Id. at 1281–82. We determined that un-
der § 1654 a litigant may not proceed pro se on behalf of an estate
when the estate has “additional beneficiaries, other than the exec-
utor [or personal representative], and/or where the estate has . . .
creditors.” Id. at 1284–85. Because the estate had other beneficiaries
besides the son and owed money to at least one creditor, we con-
cluded that the action was not the son’s “own case,” and thus he
needed to be represented by counsel. Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1654).
We further explained that “when a pro se plaintiff improperly seeks
USCA11 Case: 23-12064 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 12/14/2023 Page: 6 of 7
6 Opinion of the Court 23-12064
to represent an estate with additional beneficiaries and/or credi-
tors,” the district court must provide the plaintiff with an oppor-
tunity to obtain counsel within a reasonable amount of time before
dismissing the case. Id. at 1285.
Given our decision in Iriele, the district court properly con-
cluded that Laguille-Brugman could not proceed pro se in this law-
suit. As the amended complaint reflects, she brought the lawsuit in
her capacity as personal representative for the benefit of Brugman’s
estate, and the estate had at least one other beneficiary, Brugman’s
son. Because the estate has at least one beneficiary other than La-
guille-Brugman, she was required to be represented by counsel in
prosecuting the wrongful death claim. See id. at 1284–85.
Laguille-Brugman implicitly concedes that her argument is
foreclosed by Iriele, but she argues that we should “reassess[]” our
precedent and hold that in unique circumstances a personal repre-
sentative may proceed pro se in a wrongful death case. Appellant’s
Br. at 14. But under our prior panel precedent rule, we as a panel
are bound by Iriele “unless and until it is overruled or undermined
to the point of abrogation by the Supreme Court or by this court
sitting en banc.” United States v. Archer, 531 F.3d 1347, 1352 (11th
Cir. 2008); see also United States v. Steele, 147 F.3d 1316, 1317–18
(11th Cir. 1998) (“Under our prior panel precedent rule, a panel
cannot overrule a prior one’s holding[.]”).
Given Laguille-Brugman’s failure to obtain counsel after the
district court ordered her to do so, the district court did not abuse
its discretion when it dismissed the action without prejudice. The
USCA11 Case: 23-12064 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 12/14/2023 Page: 7 of 7
23-12064 Opinion of the Court 7
district court informed Laguille-Brugman that she needed counsel
and gave her several months to obtain counsel before dismissing
the action. Because she failed to comply with the court’s order, the
court had the inherent authority to dismiss the action without prej-
udice. See Betty K Agencies, 432 F.3d at 1337.
AFFIRMED.