Court may dismiss the complaint without prejudice on that basis. If Schneller pays the filing fee, the District Court should proceed in accordance with our opinion issued in Schneller v. Fox Stibacute at Clara Burke, et al, C.A. No. 07-1949. Appellees’ motion to file a supplemental appendix is granted. Schneller’s motion to strike the supplemental appendix and stay this appeal, and his request for oral argument, are denied. 1 . Sehneller filed his complaint pro se. He also purports to represent other persons and entities. Although Sehneller is entitled to represent himself pro se, he "may not appear pro se in the cause of another person or entity.” Pridgen v. Andresen, 113 F.3d 391, 393 (2d Cir. 1997). See also Osei-Afriyie v. Med. Coll. of Pa., 937 F.2d 876, 882-83 (3d Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); 28 U.S.C. § 1654 (parties may proceed in
holding that a corporation cannot appear pro se even when the person seeking to represent it is the president and major stockholder holding that a pro se defendant is not held to a different or more lenient standard merely because he elected to proceed pro se one who knowingly elects to represent himself assumes full responsibility for complying with the substantive and procedural requirements of the law holding that nonlawyer proceeding pro se could not represent his children holding that a defendant proceeding pro se is bound by same rules as party represented by counsel and a court cannot allow pro se litigant lower standard of performance holding a court can restrict future pro se pleadings if it first provides a pro se litigant notice and an opportunity to respond