Stephen B. Kessler v. Michael Crichton, (8th Cir. 2000)
Linked as:
Text
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-1994
Stephen B. Kessler, Appellant, KEPSFilms, Inc. Plaintiff, v. Michael Crichton, Anne-Marie Martin , AmblinÂ’ Entertainment, Inc.; Steven Spielberg, Warner Bros., Inc. , Universal City Studios, Inc., Constant C. Productions, Inc., Appellees.
Submitted: June 19, 2000
Filed: June 26, 2000
Befor e WOLLMAN, Chief Judge, and McMILLIAN and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Stephen B. Kessler appeals from final orders entered in the United States District Court1 for the Eastern District of Missouri, denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) post- judgment motions relating to the taxation of costs against him personally following an adverse jury verdict in his copyright-infringement action. For reversal, Kessler contends that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over him and denied him due process. He also argues that the court erred in not considering the pro se affidavits he submitted prior to his attorneysÂ’ withdrawal and in not permitting him to argue against his attorneysÂ’ motion to withdraw. We deny KesslerÂ’s motion to supplement the record and, for the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
A judgment is void if the rendering court lacked jurisdiction or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process. See Chambers v. Armontrout, 16 F.3d 257, 260 (8th Cir. 1994). We conclude the judgment here is not void. First, the district court had personal jurisdiction over Kessler by virtue of his filing the infringement action and voluntarily appearing at trial, see Carlson v. Hyundai Motor Co., 164 F.3d 1160, 1163 (8th Cir. 1999) (individual may submit to district court§ 1919 (district court may order payment of "just costs" when action or suit is dismissed). Second, Kessler was not deprived of due process when his pro se submissions were rejected and his attorneys were permitted to withdraw. See Stevens v. Redwing, 146 F.3d 538, 546 (8th Cir. 1998) (pro se litigant has no statutory or constitutional right to have counsel appointed in civil case); Fleming v. Harris, 39 F.3d 905, 908 (8th Cir. 1994) (decision to allow counsel to withdraw is left to district courtÂ’s discretion); United States v. Agofsky, 20 F.3d 866, 872 (8th Cir.) ("There is no constitutional or statutory right to simultaneously proceed pro se and with benefit of counsel."), cert. denied,
Appeal from the United States
District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri
[UNPUBLISHED]
Accordingly, we affirm.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
[1] The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
Sponsored links
This document cites
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit - Prod.Liab.Rep. (Cch) P 15,437 Jodi Michaelle Carlson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Hyundai Motor Company; Hyundai Motor America, Inc., Defendants-Appellees., 164 F.3d 1160 (8th Cir. 1999)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit - James E. Stevens, Individually, Plaintiff-Appellant, Jami Lynn Stevens, a Minor, By Next Friend James E. Stevens, Plaintiff, v. Rebecca J. Redwing; John S. Redwing; Ricky E. Jones; C. Curtis Holmes, Defendants-Appellees., 146 F.3d 538 (8th Cir. 1998)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit - James W. Chambers, Appellant, v. Bill Armontrout, Appellee., 16 F.3d 257 (8th Cir. 1994)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit - United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shannon Wayne Agofsky, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph Anthony Agofsky, Defendant-Appellant., 20 F.3d 866 (8th Cir. 1994)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit - Alan J. Fleming, Appellant, v. Barry J. Harris, Serial 33096, Police Officer for the Kansas City, Missouri Police Department, Appellee., 39 F.3d 905 (8th Cir. 1994)
See other documents that cite the same legislation
