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.

United States v. Stolica

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


September 1, 2009

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MIROSLAV STOLICA, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herndon, Chief Judge

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 52). Defendant filed the Motion pro se even though he is currently represented by counsel. In fact, Defendant's attorney already filed a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 47).

While it is at the Court's discretion, a pro se motion filed while the movant is represented by counsel, may be stricken as improper. See, e.g., United States v. Gwiazdzinski, 141 F.3d 784, 787 (7th Cir. 1998). The record does not show that Defendant's attorney ever moved to withdraw his representation. Under the Local Rules, an attorney may not withdraw an entry of appearance for a party without leave of court. S.D.ILL.L. R. 83.1(f).

The Court finds it proper in this instance to strike these Motions, as they was filed pro se by Defendant while he was still apparently represented by counsel.

Accordingly, the Court STRIKES Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 52).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

David R Herndon Chief Judge United States District Court

20090901

© 1992-2009 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.