Williams v. Wasco State Prison et al
Filing
82
ORDER STRIKING 81 Motion for Extension of Time to Hold Evidentiary Hearing signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 10/11/2017. (Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
LANCE WILLIAMS,
12
13
14
15
Plaintiff,
v.
WASCO STATE PRISON, et al.,
CASE NO. 1:14-cv-01714 DAD MJS (PC)
ORDER
STRIKING
MOTION
FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO HOLD
EVIDENTIARY HEARING
(ECF No. 81)
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff Lance Williams is a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis in this civil
18
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter is scheduled for an evidentiary
19
hearing on December 13, 2017. (ECF No. 79.) Plaintiff is currently represented by
20
counsel. (ECF No. 68.)
21
22
23
On October 10, 2017, Plaintiff filed, in propria persona, a motion to extend the
time for holding the evidentiary hearing. (ECF No. 81.)
By filing a motion pro se, Plaintiff has engaged in hybrid representation without
24
prior authorization. Consideration of pro se motions in this case would defeat the
25
purpose of Plaintiff’s representation by counsel and unduly burden the court. A court
26
need not consider pro se motions filed by a party who remains represented by counsel.
27
See United States. v. El–Alamin, 574 F.3d 915, 923 (8th Cir. 2009); United States v.
28
1
1
Hildreth, 485 F.3d 1120, 1125 (10th Cir. 2007); United States v. Vampire Nation, 451
2
F.3d 189, 206 n. 17 (3rd Cir. 2006); Abdullah v. United States, 240 F.3d 683, 686 (8th
3
Cir. 2001); Ennis v. LeFevre, 560 F.2d 1072 (2d Cir. 1977); Le v. Almager, No. C 08–
4
03293 SBA, 2013 WL 415632 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2013); United States v. Hoang Ai Le,
5
No. 2:99–cr–433 WBS, No. 2:16–cv–1090 WBS AC, 2016 WL 9447193 (E.D. Cal. July
6
25, 2016). See also see also United States v. Olano, 62 F.3d 1180, 1193 (9th Cir. 1995)
7
(holding that a criminal defendant does not have the right to proceed pro se when
8
represented by counsel); United States v. Williams, 791 F.2d 1383, 1389 (9th Cir. 1986)
9
(citation omitted) (“Whether to allow hybrid representation, where the accused assumes
10
some of the lawyer's functions, is within the sound discretion of the judge.”); United
11
States v. Bergman, 813 F.2d 1027, 1030 (9th Cir. 1987) (“A criminal defendant does not
12
have the right to simultaneous self-representation and the assistance of counsel.”).
13
The Court notes further that Plaintiff’s motion is dated August 27, 2017 and
14
requests an extension of time beyond the previously calendared November 3, 2017
15
evidentiary hearing date. (ECF No. 81.) On September 5, 2017, the Court moved the
16
date of the evidentiary hearing from November 3, 2017 to December 13, 2017. (ECF No.
17
79.) Accordingly, it appears that Plaintiff’s request is moot.
18
19
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s pro se
motion for extension of time to hold evidentiary hearing (ECF No. 81) is STRICKEN.
20
21
22
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
October 11, 2017
/s/
23
Michael J. Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?