Brister v. Cain

• Court: District Court, N.D. Mississippi
• Decided: January 10, 2022
• Docket: 4:20-cv-00007
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI GREENVILLE DIVISION

MICHAEL AMOS, et al. PLAINTIFFS

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:20-CV-7-SA-JMV

NATHAN BURL CAIN, et al. DEFENDANTS

Consolidated with

DARRAN LANG, et al. PLAINTIFFS

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:20-CV-30-SA-JMV

JEWORSKI MALLET, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER Now before the Court is Plaintiff Kedric Steele’s Motion for TRO/Preliminary Injunction [294]. Steele filed the Motion [294] in his pro se capacity, despite being represented by counsel. Although all parties in federal courts possess a statutory right to “plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel,” this Court has previously prohibited parties who are represented by counsel from also filing pro se pleadings. 28 U.S.C. § 1654; see Howard v. Epps, 2010 WL 2640231, at *1 (N.D. Miss. June 28, 2010); see also U.S. v. Hodges, 2016 WL 7339884, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 9, 2016) (noting, in a criminal case, that a defendant does not have the right to hybrid representation). Because Steele is represented by counsel, the Court will not consider his Pro Se Motion [294]. That Motion [294] is hereby denied without prejudice. If Steele elects to proceed pro se in this action, he may refile the Motion or counsel may file such a Motion on his behalf. SO ORDERED, this the 10th day of January, 2022. /s/ Sharion Aycock UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE