Jones v. Bradshaw
Memorandum of Opinion and Order dismissing Petitioner Jones' pro se Motion for relief from Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4). (Related Doc # 241 ). Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 8/10/2017.(R,Sh)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
ODRAYE G. JONES (n/k/a Malik
MARGARET BRADSHAW, Warden,
CASE NO. 1:03 CV 1192
JUDGE SOLOMON OLIVER, JR.
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
Before the Court in this capital habeas corpus case is Petitioner Odraye Jones’s pro se “Motion
for Relief from Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4).”1 (ECF No. 241.)
In it, Jones claims that “[t]he proceedings before the district court were void because it passed upon
issues that were moot and, therefore, the court lacks jurisdiction.” (ECF No. 241 at 2.)
The Court will not consider this motion. Jones is represented by counsel, and, as the Court
repeatedly has held, he “cannot proceed by means of hybrid representation in this matter.” (See, e.g.,
ECF No. 72 at 2; ECF No. 222 at 3.) See United States v. Mosely, 810 F.2d 93, 97 (6th Cir. 1987)
(holding that a criminal defendant has no right to be represented by counsel and to represent himself
at the same time, because it would confuse the jury and cause undue delay). Indeed, this Court has
This case was transferred to the undersigned upon the death of United States
District Court Judge David A. Katz. In addition, Jones has legally changed his name to
Malik Allah-U-Akbar. (See ECF No. 198.) The Court will continue to refer to him as
Jones in this Memorandum of Opinion and Order, however, for the sake of clarity and
specifically advised Jones that he is not to file any further pro se pleadings in this case. (See, e.g.,
ECF No. 72 at 3; ECF No. 201 at 26.)
Accordingly, Jones’ pro se “Motion for Relief from Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 60(b)(4)” (ECF No. 241) is dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ SOLOMON OLIVER, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
August 10, 2017
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?