Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Pickett v. Detella

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


October 26, 2007

OZZIE PICKETT, PLAINTIFF,
v.
GEORGE E. DETELLA, ET AL. DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: J. Phil Gilbert District Judge

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on the motions of plaintiff Ozzie Pickett (1) for an order to show cause (Doc. 155) and (2) for an extension of time to object to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and for an order regarding his legal materials (Docs. 158). The Court also considers the defendants' motion to strike Pickett's motions filed after the appearance of counsel on his behalf.

In Pickett's first motion, he seeks an order to show cause why a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction should not issue against some of the defendants in this case based on their treatment of him at Tamms Correctional Center. Pickett has since been transferred to Menard Correctional Center and has not presented any evidence he is likely to be transferred back to Tamms, so his request for injunctive relief is moot. See Higgason v. Farley, 83 F.3d 807, 811 (7th Cir. 1996); Moore v. Thieret, 862 F.2d 148, 150 (7th Cir. 1988). Furthermore, this case is on the eve of trial. Requests for preliminary injunctive relief at this stage are inappropriate. For these reasons, the Court DENIES Pickett's motion for an order to show cause (Doc. 155).

The Court notes that Pickett filed his second motion pro se, although counsel had already entered an appearance on his behalf. A defendant does not have a right to file his own motions when he is represented by counsel. See Hayes v. Hawes, 921 F.2d 100, 102 (7th Cir. 1990) (per curiam). The Court warned Pickett of this when it appointed counsel for him (Doc. 150). The Court may strike as improper any such pro se motions. See, e.g., United States v. Gwiazdzinski, 141 F.3d 784, 787 (7th Cir. 1998). The Court hereby GRANTS the defendants' motion to strike (Doc. 161) and ORDERS that Pickett's motion (Doc. 158) be STRICKEN. The Court WARNS Pickett that if he continues to make further pro se filings while he is represented by counsel, the Court will instruct the Clerk of Court to refuse to accept them for filing. The Court notes that Pickett's counsel has objected to the Report and Recommendation at Pickett's request and assures Pickett that that objection will be considered by the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20071026

© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.