Pouncy v. Palmer

Filing 384

ORDER Denying Pro Se 341 Motion to Accept Supplemental Brief and/or Amend Reply Brief. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

Case 2:13-cv-14695-MFL-LJM ECF No. 384, PageID.14139 Filed 02/18/21 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
OMAR RASHAD POUNCY,
Petitioner,

Case No. 13-cv-14695
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
MATT MACAULEY,1
Respondent.
__________________________________________________________________/
ORDER DENYING PRO PER MOTION TO ACCEPT SUPPLEMENTAL
BRIEF AND/OR TO AMEND REPLY BRIEF (ECF No. 341)
In this habeas action, Petitioner Omar Pouncy is represented by, among other
attorneys, Aaron Katz from the Ropes & Gray law firm. Since entering the case,
Mr. Katz has performed at the very highest level. He has provided Pouncy with truly
outstanding representation. In connection with a recent round of briefing, Mr. Katz
filed a 48-page reply brief in further support of Pouncy’s petition for a writ of habeas
corpus. (See Reply, ECF No. 335.) Pouncy has now moved for leave to file an

1

The proper respondent in a habeas action is the habeas petitioner’s custodian, which
in the case of an incarcerated habeas petitioner is the warden of the facility where he
is incarcerated. See Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. § 2254; Edwards v. Johns, 450 F.Supp.2d
755, 757 (E.D. Mich. 2006). Pouncy is presently incarcerated at the Bellamy Creek
Correctional Facility where Matt Macauley is Warden.
See
https://www.michigan.gov/corrections/0,4551,7-119-68854_1381_1388-5481-,00.html.
1

Case 2:13-cv-14695-MFL-LJM ECF No. 384, PageID.14140 Filed 02/18/21 Page 2 of 2

additional pro per reply of 296 pages. (See Motion, ECF No. 341; proposed reply,
ECF No. 336-1.) That motion is DENIED. A habeas petitioner may represent
himself, or he may choose to be represented by counsel. But he has no right to both
represent himself and proceed with representation by counsel. Mr. Katz’s reply brief
is – like all of his filings – work of exceptional quality. Mr. Katz has thoroughly
and appropriately addressed all of the issues that he, in the exercise of his sound
professional judgment, deems worthy of addressing. The Court is not persuaded that
Pouncy has any need to supplement Mr. Katz’s filing with another reply. The Court
will focus carefully on Mr. Katz’s reply. It will not review Pouncy’s proposed
additional reply.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 18, 2021

s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on February 18, 2021, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

2