Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. ALBA, 2:14-cr-00030-JAD-GWF. (2014)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20140411a46 Visitors: 11
Filed: Apr. 10, 2014
Latest Update: Apr. 10, 2014
Summary: ORDER Defendant's Motion for Prescription Eye Glasses (#17) GEORGE FOLEY, Jr., Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Prescription Eye Glasses (#17), filed on April 9, 2014. A district court has no obligation to entertain pro se motions filed by a represented party. See Abdullah v. U.S., 240 F.3d 683 , 685 (8th Cir. 2001). Here, despite his represented status, Defendant Alba filed a pro se motion requesting prescription eye glasses while he is incarcer
More

ORDER

Defendant's Motion for Prescription Eye Glasses (#17)

GEORGE FOLEY, Jr., Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Prescription Eye Glasses (#17), filed on April 9, 2014.

A district court has no obligation to entertain pro se motions filed by a represented party. See Abdullah v. U.S., 240 F.3d 683, 685 (8th Cir. 2001). Here, despite his represented status, Defendant Alba filed a pro se motion requesting prescription eye glasses while he is incarcerated to read his legal materials. See Doc. #17. The Court is inclined to deny Defendant's motion without prejudice due to Defendant's represented status. The Court, however, requests defense counsel either file a motion on Defendant's behalf or submit a status report updating the Court on this issue. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Prescription Eye Glasses (#17) is denied without prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defense counsel either file a motion on Defendant's behalf or submit a status report updating the Court on Defendant's prescription eye glass issue.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer