Clay v. Howard

E.D. Michigan

Clay v. Howard

DecidedJuly 26, 2022

Docket2:21-cv-12074

StatusUnknown

This text of Clay v. Howard (Clay v. Howard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Michigan primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Clay v. Howard, (E.D. Mich. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

FOR UTHNEIT EEDAS STTEARTNE SD IDSITSRTIRCITC TO FC OMUICRHTI GAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

DEWAYNE CLAY,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 3:21-CV-12074

GARY MINIARD,

Respondent. ______________________________/

ORDER STRIKING PETITIONER=S MOTION TO STAY AND HIS APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS [ECF Nos. 7, 8)

Petitioner Dewayne Clay is represented by legal counsel in this federal habeas proceeding. Nevertheless, Petitioner submitted a pro se motion to stay the proceedings and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. A party who is represented by counsel must rely on counsel to submit court filings and is not entitled to proceed in a Ahybrid@ manner by appearing both through counsel and on his or her own behalf. United States v. Steele, 919 F.3d 965, 975 (6th Cir. 2019) (AIt is well settled that there is no constitutional right to hybrid representation.@); United States v. Vannoy, No.17-20551, 2019 WL 587281, *3 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 13, 2019) (striking pro se filings because defendant was represented by counsel). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner=s pro se filings, ECF Nos. 7 and 8, are STRICKEN from the record. If Petitioner is no longer represented by counsel, he must notify the court and his counsel should move to withdraw from representation.

s/Robert H. Cleland_ ROBERT H. CLELAND Dated: July 26, 2022 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

FOR UTHNEIT EEDAS STTEARTNE SD IDSITSRTIRCITC TO FC OMUICRHTI GAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

DEWAYNE CLAY,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 3:21-CV-12074

GARY MINIARD,

Respondent. ______________________________/

ORDER STRIKING PETITIONER=S MOTION TO STAY AND HIS APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS [ECF Nos. 7, 8)

Petitioner Dewayne Clay is represented by legal counsel in this federal habeas proceeding. Nevertheless, Petitioner submitted a pro se motion to stay the proceedings and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. A party who is represented by counsel must rely on counsel to submit court filings and is not entitled to proceed in a Ahybrid@ manner by appearing both through counsel and on his or her own behalf. United States v. Steele, 919 F.3d 965, 975 (6th Cir. 2019) (AIt is well settled that there is no constitutional right to hybrid representation.@); United States v. Vannoy, No.17-20551, 2019 WL 587281, *3 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 13, 2019) (striking pro se filings because defendant was represented by counsel). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner=s pro se filings, ECF Nos. 7 and 8, are STRICKEN from the record. If Petitioner is no longer represented by counsel, he must notify the court and his counsel should move to withdraw from representation.

s/Robert H. Cleland_ ROBERT H. CLELAND Dated: July 26, 2022 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Clay v. Howard, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clay-v-howard-mied-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack