Opinion
CASE NO. 1:14-cv-01714 DAD MJS (PC)
10-11-2017
LANCE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. WASCO STATE PRISON, et al., Defendants.
ORDER STRIKING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO HOLD EVIDENTIARY HEARING
(ECF No. 81)
Plaintiff Lance Williams is a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter is scheduled for an evidentiary hearing on December 13, 2017. (ECF No. 79.) Plaintiff is currently represented by counsel. (ECF No. 68.)
On October 10, 2017, Plaintiff filed, in propria persona, a motion to extend the time for holding the evidentiary hearing. (ECF No. 81.)
By filing a motion pro se, Plaintiff has engaged in hybrid representation without prior authorization. Consideration of pro se motions in this case would defeat the purpose of Plaintiff's representation by counsel and unduly burden the court. A court need not consider pro se motions filed by a party who remains represented by counsel. See United States. v. El-Alamin, 574 F.3d 915, 923 (8th Cir. 2009); United States v. Hildreth, 485 F.3d 1120, 1125 (10th Cir. 2007); United States v. Vampire Nation, 451 F.3d 189, 206 n. 17 (3rd Cir. 2006); Abdullah v. United States, 240 F.3d 683, 686 (8th Cir. 2001); Ennis v. LeFevre, 560 F.2d 1072 (2d Cir. 1977); Le v. Almager, No. C 08-03293 SBA, 2013 WL 415632 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2013); United States v. Hoang Ai Le, No. 2:99-cr-433 WBS, No. 2:16-cv-1090 WBS AC, 2016 WL 9447193 (E.D. Cal. July 25, 2016). See also see also United States v. Olano, 62 F.3d 1180, 1193 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding that a criminal defendant does not have the right to proceed pro se when represented by counsel); United States v. Williams, 791 F.2d 1383, 1389 (9th Cir. 1986) (citation omitted) ("Whether to allow hybrid representation, where the accused assumes some of the lawyer's functions, is within the sound discretion of the judge."); United States v. Bergman, 813 F.2d 1027, 1030 (9th Cir. 1987) ("A criminal defendant does not have the right to simultaneous self-representation and the assistance of counsel.").
The Court notes further that Plaintiff's motion is dated August 27, 2017 and requests an extension of time beyond the previously calendared November 3, 2017 evidentiary hearing date. (ECF No. 81.) On September 5, 2017, the Court moved the date of the evidentiary hearing from November 3, 2017 to December 13, 2017. (ECF No. 79.) Accordingly, it appears that Plaintiff's request is moot.
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's pro se motion for extension of time to hold evidentiary hearing (ECF No. 81) is STRICKEN. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 11, 2017
/s/ Michael J . Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE