United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER BARRING PRO SE FILINGS BY A REPRESENTED PARTY
Victoria A. Roberts, United States District Judge.
Marcus Kelley (“Kelley”) is the plaintiff in a matter before this Court. Although Kelley is represented by counsel, he submitted “documentation” on his own to the Court (Doc. # 97).
There is no constitutional right 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). “A district court enjoys wide latitude in managing its docket and can require represented parties to present motions through counsel.” Mitchell v. Senkowski, 489 F.Supp.2d 147, 149 (N.D.N.Y. 2006). Thus, a district court may refuse to accept pro se submissions once an attorney has been retained. Id. See also, United States v. Gwiazdzinski, 141 F.3d 784, 787 (7th Cir. 1998) (“A defendant does not have an affirmative right to submit a pro se brief when represented by counsel. In the absence of such a right, we decline to accept [defendant’s] pro se motion or brief. The motion and brief are stricken as improperly before the Court.”).
The Court STRIKES (Doc.# 97) from the record, and rejects all future pro se filings by Kelley. As long as Kelley is represented by counsel, all future ...