IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
December 9, 2008
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
DAVID T. MORROW, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: J. Phil Gilbert District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the motion for discovery material (Doc. 321) filed by defendant David T. Morrow. Morrow filed this motion pro se although he is represented by attorney Susan Kister in his direct appeal of this criminal case. 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 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 ORDERS that the motion for discovery material (Doc. 321) be STRICKEN.
This is the second time Morrow has filed a pro se motion while being represented by counsel. The first time, the Court warned Morrow that if he continued to make further pro se filings while he was represented by counsel, the Court would instruct the Clerk of Court to refuse to accept them for filing. Morrow has apparently not heeded this warning. The Court therefore DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to return to Morrow without filing all pro se motions he attempts to file before the Court of Appeals issues its mandate in this case. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to send a copy of this order to Susan Kister, 8015 Forsyth Boulevard, St. Louis, MO 63105.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.