Pittle et al v. McGlynn et al

Filing 68

ORDER on 67 Motion for Ralph D. Pittle to Enroll and to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The motion is granted in part. Ralph D. Pittle is admitted pro hac vice as additional counsel for plaintiff Medical Legal Consultants of Washington, PLSC. The motion is denied insofar as Ralph D. Pittle also sought to enroll as additional counsel on his own behalf, appearing pro se. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 12/1/2010. (JDL)

Download PDF
-SCR Pittle et al v. McGlynn et al Doc. 68 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA RALPH D. PITTLE, ET AL VERSUS DANIEL McGLYNN, ET AL CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-620-JJB-SCR ORDER ON MOTION TO ENROLL AND FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE Considering the Motion to Enroll and for Admission Pro Hac Vice filed on behalf of Plaintiffs, Ralph D. Pittle and Medical Legal Consultants of Washington, PLSC, record document number 67; IT IS ORDERED that the motion is granted in part. Ralph D. Pittle is admitted pro hac vice as additional counsel for plaintiff Medical Legal Consultants of Washington, PLSC. denied insofar as Ralph on D. his Pittle own also sought The motion is to enroll pro as se. additional counsel behalf, appearing Individuals can "conduct their own cases personally or by counsel." 28 U.S.C. § 1654 (emphasis added). Plaintiffs have not shown that Ralph D. Pittle can represent himself and also appear through counsel at the same time. Even if Pittle was allowed to represent himself, because he is also represented by counsel admitted to practice in this court Local Rule 11.1M would still require counsel to sign any pleading, motion or other paper filed in the case. The motion does not explain what purpose would be served by allowing Pittle to represent himself while at the same time being Dockets.Justia.com represented by counsel. Baton Rouge, Louisiana, December 1, 2010. STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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?