Harden v. Polk et al

Filing 79

ORDER dismissing 78 Harden's pro se Motion for Reconsideration dismissed without prejudice. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 6/11/2010. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(cw)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES F O R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA C H AR L O TTE DIVISION C IV IL CASE NO. 3:06cv248 AL D E N JEROME HARDEN, ) ) P e t it io n e r , ) ) ) v. ) ) ) G E R AL D BRANKER, Warden, ) C e n tra l Prison ) R a le ig h , North Carolina, ) ) R e s p o n d e n t. ) __________________________________)

ORDER

TH IS MATTER is before the Court upon a letter dated December 31, 2 0 0 9 , received from Petitioner Alden Jerome Harden and addressed to the u n d e rs ig n e d . [Doc. 78]. In the letter, Harden seeks reconsideration of p rio r rulings by the Court but identifies only a Court-ordered requirement th a t he pay a $600.00 attorney fee.1 [Docs. 9, 13]. Based upon the c o n te n t of the letter, the Court has construed it as a pro se Motion to R e c o n s id e r .

1

Harden paid the fee on March 17, 2008.

A habeas petitioner has no statutory or constitutional right to proceed p ro se while simultaneously being represented by counsel. See McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168, 183, 104 S.Ct. 944, 79 L.Ed.2 122 (1984) (r e c o g n iz in g that a criminal defendant has no constitutional right to hybrid re p re s e n ta tio n at trial). Consequently, a district court is not obligated to c o n s id e r a counseled petitioner's pro se motions. See United States v. E s s ig , 10 F.3d 968, 973 (3d Cir. 1993).2 H a rd e n is represented by appointed counsel. [Docs. 29, 34]. Therefore, the Court declines to consider the instant pro se Motion to R e c o n s id e r. Furthermore, Harden is advised that he should communicate with the Court only through his attorney. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Harden's pro se Motion to R e c o n s id e r [Doc. 78] is DISMISSED without prejudice.

The Court notes that the local rules of the Western District of North Carolina limit the District Court's consideration of pro se motions filed by counseled criminal defendants: Except for challenges to the effective assistance of counsel, the Court will not ordinarily entertain a motion filed by a criminal defendant who is still represented by counsel and has not formally waived his ... right to counsel in the presence of a judicial officer after being fully advised of the consequences of waiver.... LCrR 47.1(H). 2

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: June 11, 2010

3