Jacobs v. Alam, 15-10516. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
Number: infdco20191224a58
Visitors: 1
Filed: Dec. 23, 2019
Latest Update: Dec. 23, 2019
Summary: ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS [#264] [#265] [#266] [#267] [#268] [#269] DENISE PAGE HOOD , Chief District Judge . This matter is now before the Court on Plaintiff Eduardo Jacob's ("Plaintiff") various post-judgment motions. Following the jury's verdict in favor of Defendants Raymon Alam, Damon Kimbrough, and Dave Weinman, Plaintiff filed six motions concerning alleged witness intimidation, juror tampering, and other issues with the Court. The Court declines to discuss these motions on
Summary: ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS [#264] [#265] [#266] [#267] [#268] [#269] DENISE PAGE HOOD , Chief District Judge . This matter is now before the Court on Plaintiff Eduardo Jacob's ("Plaintiff") various post-judgment motions. Following the jury's verdict in favor of Defendants Raymon Alam, Damon Kimbrough, and Dave Weinman, Plaintiff filed six motions concerning alleged witness intimidation, juror tampering, and other issues with the Court. The Court declines to discuss these motions on ..
More
ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS [#264] [#265] [#266] [#267] [#268] [#269]
DENISE PAGE HOOD, Chief District Judge.
This matter is now before the Court on Plaintiff Eduardo Jacob's ("Plaintiff") various post-judgment motions. Following the jury's verdict in favor of Defendants Raymon Alam, Damon Kimbrough, and Dave Weinman, Plaintiff filed six motions concerning alleged witness intimidation, juror tampering, and other issues with the Court. The Court declines to discuss these motions on the merits because they were filed by Plaintiff personally and not through his attorneys. The Court finds that Plaintiff is not entitled to hybrid representation and disregards Plaintiff's pro se filings. Chasteen v. Jackson, No. 1:09-CV-413, 2012 WL 1564493, at *2 (S.D. Ohio May 3, 2012) The Court STRIKES Plaintiff's pro se filings. [ECF No. 264] [ECF No. 265] [ECF No. 266] [ECF No. 267] [ECF No. 268] [ECF No. 269]
For the reasons set forth above,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's post-judgment pro se Motions [#264] [#265] [#266] [#267] [#268] [269] are DENIED and STRICKEN.
Source: Leagle
