United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER STRIKING PRO SE FILING BY A REPRESENTED PARTY
Hon. Victoria A. Roberts United States District Judge
Defendant Syed Ibrahim Hussain filed a pro se Motion to Postpone Status Hearing and Pre-Sentencing Interview and requesting other relief [doc 42].
Federal law permits a criminal defendant to appear “personally or by counsel.” 28 U.S.C. §1654. This is “disjunctive; a party may either represent himself or appear through an attorney.” Hall v Dorsey, 534 F.Supp. 507, 508 (E.D. Pa 1982).
There is no right, constitutional or otherwise, to “hybrid representation - the representation at the same time by counsel and pro se.” United States v Trapnell, 638 F.2d 1016, 1027 (7th Cir. 1980). Therefore, as part of the latitude accorded district courts managing their dockets, courts may bar pro se filings by represented parties. United States v Agofsky, 20 F.3d 866, 872 (8th Cir. 1994) (finding no error in the court’s refusal to consider pro se motion where defendant was represented by counsel); United States v Tracy, 989 F.2d 1279, 1285 (1st Cir. 1993) (“A district court enjoys wide latitude in managing its docket and can require represented parties to present motions through counsel.”)
Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is STRICKEN and forwarded to defendant’s counsel without further consideration. Future filings are similarly barred so long as ...