IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
April 19, 2006
ANTONIO DONABY, PETITIONER/DEFENDANT,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Stiehl, District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This action comes before the Court on Petitioner's "Motion for Permission to Proceed ProSe" (Doc. 8) and Petitioner's motions to supplement the petition (Docs. 4 & 6).
Petitioner's original motion pursuant to section 2255 was filed by an attorney. Despite his representation by counsel, Petitioner filed three motions pro se requesting leave to supplement the petition (Docs. 4 & 6) and requesting a status report in the case (Doc. 5). On December 19, 2005, the Court entered an order informing Plaintiff that because he was represented by counsel, he could not file these motions pro se. However, Because of the Court's mistaken belief that attorney Rodney Holmes had not been admitted to practice in the District, the Petitioner was ordered to inform the Court whether he intended to proceed pro se in the action. Upon further investigation, it was determined that Mr. Holmes was admitted to practice in the District in 1998. The Court sincerely apologizes for the erroneous determination.
In the meantime, however, Petitioner responded to the Court's order with the instant motion (Doc. 8) in which he states that he wishes to proceed without counsel in the matter so that the Court will consider the three motions filed pro se.
Petitioner's motion for permission to proceed pro se (Doc. 8) is GRANTED. Accordingly, Petitioner's motions to supplement the petition (Docs. 4 & 6) are also GRANTED. The Court will now proceed with its initial review of the petition.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
WILLIAM D. STIEHL DISTRICT JUDGE
© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.