FARLEY v. DAVIS, 16-cv-4443-PJH. (2017)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20170511c11
Visitors: 15
Filed: May 10, 2017
Latest Update: May 10, 2017
Summary: DEATH PENALTY CASE ORDER DENYING PRO SE MOTION PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON , District Judge . INTRODUCTION The Court is in receipt of Farley's pro se letter filed April 27, 2017, wherein he seeks an Order granting access to an electronic version of his trial transcripts and a computer system in his cell on which to view the transcripts. See ECF Doc. 21. Farley is represented by counsel and representedd parties do not have the right to proceed pro se. See United States v. Olano, 62 F.3d 11880
Summary: DEATH PENALTY CASE ORDER DENYING PRO SE MOTION PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON , District Judge . INTRODUCTION The Court is in receipt of Farley's pro se letter filed April 27, 2017, wherein he seeks an Order granting access to an electronic version of his trial transcripts and a computer system in his cell on which to view the transcripts. See ECF Doc. 21. Farley is represented by counsel and representedd parties do not have the right to proceed pro se. See United States v. Olano, 62 F.3d 11880,..
More
DEATH PENALTY CASE
ORDER DENYING PRO SE MOTION
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON, District Judge.
INTRODUCTION
The Court is in receipt of Farley's pro se letter filed April 27, 2017, wherein he seeks an Order granting access to an electronic version of his trial transcripts and a computer system in his cell on which to view the transcripts. See ECF Doc. 21.
Farley is represented by counsel and representedd parties do not have the right to proceed pro se. See United States v. Olano, 62 F.3d 11880, 1193 (9th Cir. 1995). The "right to counsel and the right to proceed pro se are disjunctive rights." United States v. Crowhurst, 629 F.2d 1297, 1301 (9th Cir. 1980). Here, Farley has two attorneys acting on his behalf who are able to file any motion that, in their professional judgment, they deem to have merit. Thus, any motion Farley wishes to present to the Court must be filed through his counsel of record. Accordingly, this motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
