Rand v. USA

Filing 24

ORDER that Petitioners counsel shall file a Response within five (5) days of this Order stating whether he is adopting Petitioners 23 MOTION for Extension of Time. Signed by District Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 11/14/2018. (ams)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:17-cv-687-RJC
3:10-cr-182-RJC-DSC-1
MICHAEL T. RAND,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
)
)
Respondent.
)
____________________________________)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner’s pro se “Motion to Request Extension
to Respond to Respondent’s Motion to Vacate,” (Doc. No. 23), in which Petitioner appears to seek
an extension of time to file a Reply to the Government’s Response to his § 2255 Motion to Vacate.
Petitioner is represented by counsel in this § 2255 action. There is no right to “hybrid
representation” in which defendant is represented both by himself and by counsel. McKaskle v.
Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168, 183 (1984); see Cain v. Peters, 972 F.2d 748, 750 (7th Cir.1992)
(representation by counsel and self-representation are mutually exclusive entitlements in light of
McKaskle). Counsel has not adopted Petitioner’s pro se filing and Petitioner does not appear to
seek counsel’s removal from the case. Therefore, the pro se Motion seeking an extension of time
is an unauthorized pleading that is subject to being stricken. However, Petitioner alleges that he
has been unable to communicate with his lawyer, Adam Hames. Petitioner’s counsel shall file a
Response within five (5) days of this Order stating whether he is adopting Petitioner’s pro se
Motion seeking an extension of time to file a Reply.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

1

Signed: November 14, 2018

2