Opinion
Case No. 5:93-cr-25 (HL).
September 27, 2010
ORDER
On September 23, 2010, Petitioner filed a pro se Motion in which he requests certain information about his pending case and states that he is being held illegally. (Doc. 179).
It is not necessary to address the merits of Petitioner's motion because he is not permitted to file any motions pro se while he is represented by counsel. "A district court has no obligation to entertain pro se motions filed by a represented party." Abdullah v. United States, 240 F.3d 683, 686 (8th Cir. 2001). The Court declines to consider and consequently denies Petitioner's Motion. The questions posed to the Clerk of Court in the Motion are more properly directed to Petitioner's attorney.
SO ORDERED.