Miller v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools

W.D. North Carolina

Miller v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. North Carolina

DecidedFebruary 14, 2025

Docket3:24-cv-00511

StatusUnknown

This text of Miller v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools (Miller v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Miller v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools, (W.D.N.C. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION DOCKET NO. 3:24-cv-00511-FDW-DCK

JOHNNY E. MILLER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) CHARLOTTE MECKLENBURG ) BOARD OF EDUCATION, CRYSTAL ) HILL, and JACQUELINE BARONE, ) ) Defendants. )

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike. (Doc. No. 28.) On January 7, 2025, Sharika Robinson filed a Notice of Appearance on behalf of Plaintiff. (Doc. No. 23.) On January 31, 2025, Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss and memorandum in support. (Doc. Nos. 24–25.) On February 7, 2025, Plaintiff filed a pro se response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. No. 26.) On February 13, 2025, Ms. Robinson filed a response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. No. 27), and a Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s pro se response, (Doc. No. 28.) “A plaintiff has ‘no right to proceed pro se’ in an action wherein he is ‘represented by retained counsel.’” Blankenship v. Fox News Network, LLC, No. 2:19-cv-00236, 2021 WL 5283307, at *1 (S.D. W.Va. Nov. 12, 2021) (citing Frank M. McDermott, Ltd. v. Moretz, 898 F.2d 418, 422 (4th Cir. 1990)). Further, a represented party “has no right to conduct part of his own case by filing pleadings, conducting depositions, arguing motions, or examining witnesses during trial.” Haefner v. County of Lancaster, Pa., 165 F.R.D. 58, 59 (E.D. Va. 1996). Plaintiff confirms he is still represented by Ms. Robinson. (Doc. No. 23; Doc. No. 28, p. 1.) Plaintiff explained he erroneously filed the first response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. No. 28, p. 1.) Plaintiff and Ms. Robinson are both reminded to keep the Court updated about the representation in this case and to notify the Court of any changes in representation. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff's Motion to Strike, (Doc. No. 28), is GRANTED. 2. Plaintiffs pro se response, (Doc. No. 26), is STRICKEN from the docket. 3. Plaintiff's filing through counsel, (Doc. No. 27), is his response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. 4. Defendants may file a reply to Plaintiff's response by February 21, 2025. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed: February 14, 2025

Frank D. Whitney sy Senior United States District Judge ey

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION DOCKET NO. 3:24-cv-00511-FDW-DCK

JOHNNY E. MILLER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) CHARLOTTE MECKLENBURG ) BOARD OF EDUCATION, CRYSTAL ) HILL, and JACQUELINE BARONE, ) ) Defendants. )

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike. (Doc. No. 28.) On January 7, 2025, Sharika Robinson filed a Notice of Appearance on behalf of Plaintiff. (Doc. No. 23.) On January 31, 2025, Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss and memorandum in support. (Doc. Nos. 24–25.) On February 7, 2025, Plaintiff filed a pro se response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. No. 26.) On February 13, 2025, Ms. Robinson filed a response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. No. 27), and a Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s pro se response, (Doc. No. 28.) “A plaintiff has ‘no right to proceed pro se’ in an action wherein he is ‘represented by retained counsel.’” Blankenship v. Fox News Network, LLC, No. 2:19-cv-00236, 2021 WL 5283307, at *1 (S.D. W.Va. Nov. 12, 2021) (citing Frank M. McDermott, Ltd. v. Moretz, 898 F.2d 418, 422 (4th Cir. 1990)). Further, a represented party “has no right to conduct part of his own case by filing pleadings, conducting depositions, arguing motions, or examining witnesses during trial.” Haefner v. County of Lancaster, Pa., 165 F.R.D. 58, 59 (E.D. Va. 1996). Plaintiff confirms he is still represented by Ms. Robinson. (Doc. No. 23; Doc. No. 28, p. 1.) Plaintiff explained he erroneously filed the first response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. No. 28, p. 1.) Plaintiff and Ms. Robinson are both reminded to keep the Court updated about the representation in this case and to notify the Court of any changes in representation. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff's Motion to Strike, (Doc. No. 28), is GRANTED. 2. Plaintiffs pro se response, (Doc. No. 26), is STRICKEN from the docket. 3. Plaintiff's filing through counsel, (Doc. No. 27), is his response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. 4. Defendants may file a reply to Plaintiff's response by February 21, 2025. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed: February 14, 2025

Frank D. Whitney sy Senior United States District Judge ey

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Miller v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-charlotte-mecklenburg-schools-ncwd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack