Thompson v. Ryker, et. al

Filing 50

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Striking 47 MOTION for Order to filed by Stanton J Thompson, Striking 48 MOTION for Order to filed by Stanton J Thompson.The Court Warns Thompson that if he continues to make further pro se filings while he is represented by counsel, the Court will instruct the Clerk of Court to refuse to accept them for filing. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 9/26/12. (bkl)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
STANTON J. THOMPSON,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 10-cv-436-JPG

v.
LEE RYKER, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court for case management purposes. Plaintiff Stanton J.
Thompson has filed two pro se motion (Docs. 47 & 48). Thompson is represented by counsel
Theodore R. Bynum.
A defendant does not have a right to file his own motions when he is represented by
counsel. See Hayes v. Hawes, 921 F.2d 100, 102 (7th Cir. 1990) (per curiam). “Representation by
counsel and self-representation are mutually exclusive.” Cain v. Peters, 972 F.2d 748, 750 (7th
Cir. 1992). So-called “hybrid representation” confuses and extends matters at trial and in other
proceedings and, therefore, it is forbidden. See United States v. Oreye, 263 F.3d 669, 672-73 (7th
Cir. 2001). The Court may strike as improper any such pro se motions. See, e.g., United States v.
Gwiazdzinski, 141 F.3d 784, 787 (7th Cir. 1998). The Court ORDERS that Thompson’s motions
(Docs. 47 & 48) be STRICKEN. The Court notes that this is not the first time Thompson has
filed a pro se motion while represented by counsel. The Court WARNS Thompson that if he
continues to make further pro se filings while he is represented by counsel, the Court will instruct
the Clerk of Court to refuse to accept them for filing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: September 26, 2012
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE