MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

J. PHIL GILBERT, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on defendant Antonio Payton's pro se motion for appointment of counsel and for a reduction in sentence in light of the First Step Act, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194 (2018) (Doc. 244).

The motion is DENIED as moot to the extent it seeks appointment of counsel. Assistant Federal Public Defender Judith A. Kuenneke has entered her appearance for Payton for the purposes of potentially seeking a sentence reduction under the First Step Act (Doc. 241), so Payton already has counsel.

To the extent Payton's filing constitutes a motion for a sentence reduction, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to STRIKE the motion. Payton filed this motion pro se, although, as noted above, he is represented by counsel for the purposes of exploring the possibility of seeking a sentence reduction. 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). "Representation by counsel and self-representation are mutually exclusive." Cain v. Peters, 972 F.2d 748, 750 (7th Cir. 1992). So-called "hybrid representation" confuses and extends matters at trial and in other proceedings and, therefore, it is forbidden. See United States v. Oreye, 263 F.3d 669, 672-73 (7th Cir. 2001). 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 suggests Payton contact Ms. Kuenneke if he has questions about the status of a potential motion for a sentence reduction in light of the First Step Act.

IT IS SO ORDERED.