IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

WESTERN DIVISION

Anti-Tranny Political Action

Committee & Napier Sandford Fuller,

Plaintiffs,
7:20-CV-00028-D
v.

State of North Carolina, et al.,

Defendants.

Anti-Tranny Political Action

Committee & Napier Sandford Fuller,

Plaintiffs,
7:20-CV-00029-D
v.

State of North Carolina, et al.,

Defendants.

Order

Plaintiffs Anti-Tranny Political Action Committee and Napier Sandford Fuller, both

proceeding pro se, have filed two separate complaints against an assortment of defendants. The

Complaints, which are largely identical, allege that the Defendants violated Plaintiffs’

constitutional rights. The complaints have been referred to this magistrate judge to conduct the

review required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

Before completing the § 1915 review, there are two preliminary matters that Plaintiffs need

to address.

Case 7:20-cv-00029-D Document 8 Filed 04/17/20 Page 1 of 3

 First, Plaintiffs have filed two nearly identical actions. No later than May 1, 2020, Plaintiffs

shall file a notice in both actions specifying whether they wish to proceed with either, neither, or

both actions. If Plaintiffs say that they wish to discontinue one or both actions, the Clerk of Court

will treat the filing as a stipulation of dismissal of the appropriate action. Failure to comply with

this portion of the order may result in the dismissal of both actions.

Second, Plaintiff Anti-Tranny Political Action Committee is not a natural person. Instead,

it is a corporate entity. And based on its review of the directory of attorneys admitted to the bar of

the Eastern District of North Carolina and the directory of licensed attorneys maintained by the

North Carolina State Bar, the court has determined that Plaintiff Fuller is not a licensed attorney.

The Supreme Court of the United States has explained that “[a] corporation may appear in

the federal courts only through licensed counsel.” Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, 506 U.S.

194, 201–02 (1993). This has been the law “for the better part of two centuries[.]” Id. at 202. Thus,

the Anti-Tranny Political Action Committee must retain counsel and its counsel must enter a notice

of appearance no later than May 1, 2020.

If counsel does not appear on behalf of the Anti-Tranny Political Action Committee by that

deadline, the court may dismiss it from these cases. See Peak Resorts, LLC v. Ski the Ridges, LLC,

No. 1:14-CV-55, 2014 WL 4351621, at *1 (W.D.N.C. July 7, 2014) (“[F]ederal district courts

routinely dismiss claims brought by corporate parties who fail to obtain counsel or enter default

against corporate defendants who fail to obtain counsel”), adopted by 2014 WL 4351623, at *1

(W.D.N.C. Aug. 29, 2014); Synergy Fin., LLC v. Zarro, 329 F. Supp. 2d 701, 703 n.1 (W.D.N.C.

2004) (noting that the failure of corporate defendants to retain counsel would lead to an entry of

default); Microsoft Corp. v. Comput. Serv. & Repair, Inc., 312 F. Supp. 2d 779, 782 (E.D.N.C.

2004) (striking pleadings pro se defendant filed on behalf of himself and corporation). In the

Case 7:20-cv-00029-D Document 8 Filed 04/17/20 Page 2 of 3

meantime, the Anti-Tranny Political Action Committee’s lack of counsel does not excuse it from

complying with the requirements and deadlines in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Eastern

District Local Rules, and orders of this court.

Dated: April 17, 2020

______________________________________
R OBERT T. NUMBERS, II
Robert
U NITEDT. Numbers,
STATES II
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
United States Magistrate Judge

Case 7:20-cv-00029-D Document 8 Filed 04/17/20 Page 3 of 3