James-Bey v. Stancil
ORDER dismissing 18 Motion for the Court to exercise Article Three (3) authority to dissolve, dismiss and quash all criminal matters related to TERRANCE LAMONT JAMES; dismissing 19 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 6/4/18. (clc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
TERRANCE L. JAMES-BEY,
RENOICE E. STANCIL,
THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Petitioner Terrence James-Bey’s pro se
Motion for the Court to “exercise Article Three (3) authority to dissolve, dismiss and quash all
“criminal” matters related to “TERRANCE LAMONT JAMES” (Doc. No. 18) and pro se
Motion to Amend (Doc. No. 19). Petitioner is represented by counsel.
Petitioner is a prisoner of the State of North Carolina serving a life sentence for firstdegree murder. On June 24, 2013, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, 28
U.S.C. § 2254, in this Court, raising an Eighth Amendment claim.1 (Doc. No. 1.) Action on the
Petition has been stayed since July 13, 2013, while Petitioner exhausts his Eighth Amendment
claim in the state courts. (Doc. No. 5.)
These are Petitioner’s fifth and sixth pro se motions in this action. As the Court
explained when dismissing Petitioner’s first, second, third, and fourth motions, the Constitution
does not confer a right to proceed simultaneously by counsel and pro se (Doc. Nos. 9, 12). See
Further background in this matter may be found in this Court’s May 10, 2016 Order (Doc. No. 9) dismissing
Petitioner’s pro se Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 6), pro se Motion to Lift Stay (Doc. No. 7), and pro se Amended
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. No. 8).
McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168, 183 (1984) (finding no constitutional right to hybrid
representation); see also, United States v. Penniegraft, 641 F.3d 566, 569 n.1 (4th Cir. 2011)
(holding that where defendant is represented by counsel on appeal and his appeal is not
submitted pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), defendant may not submit pro
se briefing). Absent credible evidence that Petitioner is no longer represented by counsel, the
Court is not obligated to consider his pro se filings. See Wiggins, 465 U.S. at 183.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Petitioner’s pro se Motion for the Court to
“exercise Article Three (3) authority to dissolve, dismiss and quash all “criminal” matters related
to “TERRANCE LAMONT JAMES” (Doc. No. 18) and pro se Motion to Amend (Doc. No. 19)
Signed: June 4, 2018
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?