Flowers v. Warden et al

Filing 68

ORDER striking 61 motion to have District Court review exculpatory evidence. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 10/21/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7
8
9
JOHN FLOWERS,
10
Petitioner,

Case No. 3:10-cv-00367-RCJ-VPC

11
vs.

ORDER

12
WARDEN, et al.,
13
Respondents.
14
15
16

This action is a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254

17

by a Nevada state prisoner. After an evidentiary hearing, on May 16, 2012, the court dismissed this

18

petition with prejudice as untimely (#50), and judgment was entered (#51).1 Petitioner, through counsel,

19

filed a notice of appeal (#52), and his appeal is pending before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

20

Now before the court is petitioner’s pro se motion, dated September 23, 2014, that he styled as an

21

emergency motion to have the District Court review exculpatory evidence (#61). Respondents opposed

22

(#63), and petitioner replied, again in pro se (#s 66 and 67).2

23

The Local Rules provide that 1) a party who has appeared through counsel cannot while so

24

represented appear or act in the case, and 2) counsel who has appeared for a party shall be recognized

25

by the court and all the parties as having control of the client’s case. L.R. IA 106-(a). On July 26, 2010,

26
27

1

28

2

Refers to the court’s docket number.
Docket #67 is a duplicate of #66.

1

the Federal Public Defender filed a notice of representation (#14). Neither petitioner nor his counsel

2

has filed a motion to terminate representation or to withdraw as counsel. Accordingly, petitioner’s pro

3

se emergency motion is a fugitive document and shall be stricken. Petitioner is advised that he shall

4

communicate with the court through his counsel. Finally, the court observes that many of the

5

allegations that petitioner urges the court to consider--“by way of ultrasound”–such as that correctional

6

officers used the Patriot Act against him by drugging him with “ruffies” in order that he would inform

7

on others concerning organized crime and that he has been subjected to Long Range Acoustic Devices

8

that mimic auditory hallucinations, are delusional and factually frivolous (#61, pp. 1, 5, 15).

9
10
11

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner’s pro se emergency motion to have District
Court review exculpatory evidence (#61) is STRICKEN.
Dated this 21st day dayOctober, 2014.
DATED this _____ of of ______________________________, 2014.

12
13
14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-