United States v. Dozier, 16-03102-01-CR-S-RK. (2019)
Court: District Court, W.D. Missouri
Number: infdco20190711b20
Visitors: 19
Filed: Jul. 10, 2019
Latest Update: Jul. 10, 2019
Summary: ORDER DAVID P. RUSH , Magistrate Judge . Now pending before the Court are Defendant's pro se motions filed without the assistance of his attorney requesting the Court to strike or revisit all his prior pro se filings and excuse his appearance at court proceedings. (Docs. 229 and 230). On September 29, 2016, the Court entered a Scheduling and Trial Order, specifically instructing that pro se filings will not be accepted by defendants who are represented by counsel. (Doc. 15, VI). Because
Summary: ORDER DAVID P. RUSH , Magistrate Judge . Now pending before the Court are Defendant's pro se motions filed without the assistance of his attorney requesting the Court to strike or revisit all his prior pro se filings and excuse his appearance at court proceedings. (Docs. 229 and 230). On September 29, 2016, the Court entered a Scheduling and Trial Order, specifically instructing that pro se filings will not be accepted by defendants who are represented by counsel. (Doc. 15, VI). Because ..
More
ORDER
DAVID P. RUSH, Magistrate Judge.
Now pending before the Court are Defendant's pro se motions filed without the assistance of his attorney requesting the Court to strike or revisit all his prior pro se filings and excuse his appearance at court proceedings. (Docs. 229 and 230). On September 29, 2016, the Court entered a Scheduling and Trial Order, specifically instructing that pro se filings will not be accepted by defendants who are represented by counsel. (Doc. 15, § VI). Because the Court has appointed counsel in this matter, the filing of a motion pro se is improper. See United States v. Hunter, 770 F.3d 740, 746 (8th Cir. 2014). Therefore, the motion is DENIED without prejudice. Any request of the Court must be raised by and through Defendant's attorney.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
