ORDER

ANN D. MONTGOMERY, District Judge.

This matter is before the undersigned Untied States District Judge for a ruling on Defendant Elfred William Petruk's ("Petruk") Motion for Mistrial [Docket No. 185]. Petruk contends that law enforcement officers from the Duluth, Minnesota Police Department obtained search warrants by illegal means. Petruk requests files from the Duluth Police Department, new counsel, and a new trial.

Petruk, who is currently represented by counsel, made a similar pro se request on January 11, 2018. See Letter [Docket No. 183]. In response, the Court replied by letter to Petruk that since he is represented by counsel, he should not file any further motions with this Court. See Letter [Docket No. 184]. The Court additionally stated that since this matter has been appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, this Court lacks jurisdiction. Id.

The current circumstances remain unchanged from when Petruk's previous request was denied. Accordingly, the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Petruk's Motion for Mistrial. Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (per curiam); Hope v. United States, 100 F.3d 959, Nos. 96-1761, 96-2447, 1996 WL 633388, at *1 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (unpublished table opinion).

Based upon the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Elfred William Petruk's Motion for Mistrial [Docket No. 185] is DENIED.