From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Wilson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION
Sep 26, 2013
CAUSE NO.: 1:08-CR-67-TLS (N.D. Ind. Sep. 26, 2013)

Opinion

CAUSE NO.: 1:08-CR-67-TLS

2013-09-26

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. DARNAY D. WILSON


OPINION AND ORDER

On May 29, 2012, the Court entered an Opinion and Order [ECF No. 64] denying the Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody filed by the Defendant, Darnay D. Wilson. The Defendant filed a Motion for Enlargement of Time Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) [ECF No. 68] on May 13, 2013. Because his Motion did not indicate in what manner the Defendant believed he could challenge the Court's May 29, 2012, Opinion and Order, because his request was vague, and because it appeared that he had no basis to respond to the Court's entry of final judgment, the Court denied his Motion for Enlargement of Time in an Opinion and Order [ECF No. 69] dated May 20, 2013.

Presently before the Court is a Letter [ECF No. 70] filed by the Defendant on September 23, 2013. In his Letter, the Defendant, who is incarcerated in Pennsylvania, states that he desires to marry his fiancee, who lives in Nebraska. He asks the Court to provide him legal advice concerning the proper procedure to get married in Pennsylvania, and his Letter includes specific questions about a proxy marriage.

The Court cannot give the Defendant legal advice. See Grzanecki v. Bravo Cucina Italiana, 408 F. App'x 993, 996 (7th Cir. 2011) (approving the district court's refusal to provide legal advice to a pro se party); Brown v. Sanders, No. 4:11-CV-026, 2011 WL 1832924, at *2 (N.D. Ind. May 13, 2011) (stating that the court "may not give [a pro se party] legal advice"); Washington v. Jess, No. 08-CV-111, 2008 WL 5191250, at *1 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 11, 2008) (declining to give a pro se party legal advice). The Court recommends that the Defendant seek the advice of an attorney licensed to practice in Pennsylvania, whether one provided through the Bureau of Prisons or private counsel.

For the reasons discussed, the Court DENIES the request for legal advice contained in the Defendant's Letter [ECF No. 70].

_____________

THERESA L. SPRINGMANN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


Summaries of

United States v. Wilson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION
Sep 26, 2013
CAUSE NO.: 1:08-CR-67-TLS (N.D. Ind. Sep. 26, 2013)
Case details for

United States v. Wilson

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. DARNAY D. WILSON

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION

Date published: Sep 26, 2013

Citations

CAUSE NO.: 1:08-CR-67-TLS (N.D. Ind. Sep. 26, 2013)