USA v. Eklund

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
LOUIS HOLGER EKLUND,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:18-cr-00035-SLG
ORDER REGARDING NOTICES OF LAY COUNSEL
Before the Court at Docket 506 is a filing entitled “Notice of Superseeding
[sic] Entry” filed by Wyatt Redfox. The notice purports to be a notice of entry of
counsel, wherein Mr. Redfox asserts that he is appearing as counsel for pro se
defendant Louis Holger Eklund “for the purpose of conducting trial.”1 Before the
Court at Docket 507 is a filing by Mr. Holger entitled “Notice of Appointment of Trial
Counsel,” in which Mr. Holger asserts that he has appointed Mr. Redfox “as my
trial counsel, for my upcoming trial.”2
Mr. Redfox is an inmate at the Anchorage Correctional Complex and there
is no indication that he is an attorney licensed to practice law. Mr. Holger has
elected to proceed pro se, and a pro se litigant’s interests may only be represented
by the litigant himself or—should he forgo his right to self-representation—by a
1 Docket 506 at 1.
2 Docket 507 at 2.
Case 3:18-cr-00035-SLG-MMS Document 508 Filed 04/07/21 Page 1 of 2

Case No. 3:18-cr-00035-SLG, United States v. Eklund
Order Re Notices of Lay Counsel
Page 2 of 2
licensed attorney.3 Mr. Holger has no right to by represented by a non-attorney.
There is a “well-settled rule against lay representation,”4 and “the Sixth
Amendment affords the right of self-representation, but not a right to lay
representation.”5 Mr. Redfox is not an attorney and may not appear in this action
or otherwise serve as counsel for Mr. Holger.
In light of the foregoing, Mr. Redfox will not be permitted to appear as
counsel for Mr. Holger, will not be permitted to file documents in this case, and will
not be served with any filings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 7th day of April, 2021, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3 United States v. Wright, 568 F.2d 142, 143 (9th Cir. 1978) (“The Supreme Court [in Faretta v.
California] did not extend the sixth amendment to encompass the right to be represented before
the bar of a court by a layman. Each circuit which has considered the question has held there is
no right to representation by persons who are not qualified attorneys.”).
4 United States v. French, 748 F.3d 922, 933 (9th Cir. 2014); accord Wheat v. United States, 486
U.S. 153, 159 (1988) (“an advocate who is not a member of the bar may not represent clients
(other than himself) in court”); Herrera–Venegas v. Sanchez–Rivera, 681 F.2d 41, 42 (1st Cir.
1982) (“The federal courts have consistently rejected attempts at third-party lay representation.
By law an individual may appear in federal courts only pro se or through legal counsel.” (citation
omitted)).
5 Id. at 934 (emphasis in original) (internal quotations and citation omitted).
Case 3:18-cr-00035-SLG-MMS Document 508 Filed 04/07/21 Page 2 of 2