involved in the illegal conduct.” Simpkins v. District of Columbia, 108 F.3d 366, 369 (D.C.Cir.1997) (internal citation omitted). DeBrew’s complaint lacks facts showing the individual defendants were personally involved in the alleged constitutional violations. We therefore affirm the district court’s dismissal of all the claims against the individual defendants in their personal capacities. We note, however, that DeBrew filed a motion for leave to amend his complaint, which the district court denied when it dismissed his constitutional claims. De-Brew contends his amended complaint includes factual allegations showing the individual defendants were personally involved in the unlawful conduct. If on remand the district court allows DeBrew to file an amended co 831, 834 (D.C.Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). We affirm the district court’s order denying
holding that a corporation cannot appear pro se even when the person seeking to represent it is the president and major stockholder holding a person who is not a member of the bar of any court  may appear pro se but is not qualified to appear in the district court or in this court as counsel for others holding that class representatives cannot appear pro se holding that a nonattorney may not appear pro se in his capacity as independent executor of an estate holding that a nonattorney may not appear pro se on behalf of a corporation