Notice of of Assistant (ECF 27)

PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF NON-ATTORNEY LITIGATION ASSISTANT

Plaintiff Logan Martin Isaac, appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, respectfully files this Notice to inform the Court that Brother Timothy Tribble, a member of the Hospitallers of St. Martin (HoSM), will assist Plaintiff with logistics, correspondence management, and administrative support in this proceeding. Brother Timothy is not an attorney and will not provide legal representation or make any court appearances on Plaintiff's behalf.

Plaintiff files this Notice proactively to establish a clear record regarding the scope of Brother Timothy's role and the basis for that arrangement, in light of the documented pattern of informal, undocumented conduct by Oregon state actors - including personnel within the Oregon Department of Justice - that has characterized this litigation since its inception.

ROLE AND SCOPE OF NON-ATTORNEY ASSISTANT

Brother Timothy Tribble will assist Plaintiff solely in the following non-legal capacities:

• Managing and organizing incoming and outgoing correspondence;
• Serving as a contemporaneous witness to oral communications and telephonic conferences with opposing counsel;
• Maintaining records of communications and proceedings; and
• Providing general logistical and administrative support.

Brother Timothy will not draft legal documents, provide legal advice, or represent Plaintiff in any capacity before this Court. All filings, legal arguments, and court communications will originate from and be signed by Plaintiff alone.

Ill. LEGAL BASIS

No Federal Rule of Civil Procedure prohibits a pro se litigant from receiving non-legal administrative assistance or from having a support person present during communications with opposing counsel. The Federal Rules govern the conduct of litigation before the Court; they do not restrict the private arrangements a party may make for logistical support outside of court proceedings.

Courts have recognized that pro se litigants operating without the institutional infrastructure available to represented parties - including support staff, paralegal assistance, and document management systems - face_ compounded practical burdens. The use of a non-attorney administrative assistant addresses those burdens without implicating the unauthorized practice of law or any rule governing court appearances.

Plaintiff is not represented by counsel. Should Plaintiff obtain legal representation, counsel of record will supersede this arrangement consistent with applicable rules.

IV. BASIS FOR THIS ARRANGEMENT: DOCUMENTED PATTERN OF CONDUCT

Plaintiff does not file this Notice as a matter of routine preference. The arrangement reflects a reasoned and necessary response to a documented pattern of informal, undocumented, and legally irregular conduct by Oregon state actors across multiple proceedings related to the civil rights advocacy underlying this litigation.

Specifically, Plaintiff places the following conduct on the record:

Oregon DOJ - Unlawful Small Claims Appearances and False Certificates of Readiness

In 2025, Plaintiff filed multiple small claims actions against state actors related to the constitutional violations alleged in this matter. The Oregon Department of Justice, through DOJ attorney Rebecca Maile, entered appearances on behalf of state defendants in those proceedings in violation of Oregon Revised Statute 46.415(4), which prohibits attorneys from appearing in small claims proceedings except by prior consent of the court entered of record. No such consent was obtained before DOJ filed multiple documents on defendants' behalf.

On May 15, 2025, Plaintiff served written objections on DOJ to two proposed orders. On May 16, 2025, Defendant Maile responded by email confirming receipt: "I have received your objection." On May 23, 2025, Defendant Maile filed Certificates of Readiness in those proceedings that affirmatively represented "No objection has been served on" her. 

This representation was demonstrably false at the time of filing. Defendant Maile's paralegal, Michael Haselton, had acknowledged receipt of Plaintiff's written communications on April 23, 2025, establishing actual knowledge of Plaintiff's outstanding objections and outstanding discovery requests.

These Certificates of Readiness were materially false, were filed by attorneys employed by the same Oregon Department of Justice that now defends this action, and resulted in the denial of Plaintiff's meaningful access to those proceedings.

DOJ's Acknowledged "Normal Practice" of Substituting Agency Staff for Named Defendants

In its small claims filings, the Oregon DOJ explicitly described its conduct as the office's "normal" practice: appearing to represent named state employees in small claims proceedings through non-lawyer DOJ staff, effectively substituting institutional actors for the individual defendants named by the plaintiff. This practice, acknowledged in DOJ's own filings, shielded the named defendants from accountability and frustrated Plaintiff's ability to obtain discovery and relief in those forums.

Broader Pattern of Escalation Without Documentation

The conduct described above is consistent with the broader pattern alleged in this action: informal, coordinated escalation of restrictions on Plaintiff's access and advocacy, executed without formal notice, without hearing, and without contemporaneous written justification. The absence of documentation has been a recurring feature of the state actors' conduct throughout this matter.

Given this documented history, Plaintiff has a concrete, reasonable basis to ensure that all communications with opposing counsel in this action are witnessed and contemporaneously recorded by an independent third party. This is not a litigation tactic; it is a prophylactic measure made necessary by the conduct of Oregon state actors in proceedings directly related to this one.

V. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff respectfully notifies the Court and opposing counsel that Brother Timothy Tribble will serve as a non-attorney logistical assistant and witness throughout this proceeding. Plaintiff requests that opposing counsel include Brother Timothy on all correspondence directed to Plaintiff and that his presence on communications not be treated as a basis for objection absent a specific court order to the contrary.

If the Court determines that any aspect of this arrangement requires judicial authorization, Plaintiff respectfully requests the opportunity to be heard on that question and is prepared to submit a formal motion.