Opinion
Civil No. 2:18-CV-11161
02-01-2019
MARCUS MANDELLE KELLEY, Petitioner, v. MELINDA BRAMAN, Respondent.
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE MOTION TO STAY
Marcus Mandelle Kelley ("petitioner"), filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, through counsel, Phillip D. Comorski, in which he challenges his conviction for two counts of manufacture or delivery of less than 50 grams of cocaine, Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.7401(2)(a)(iv), two counts of manufacture or delivery of 50 to 449 grams of cocaine, § 333.7401(2)(a)(iii), and one count of conspiracy to manufacture or delivery 50 to 449 grams of cocaine, §§ 333.7401(2)(a)(iii) and 750.157a.
Petitioner has now filed a pro se motion to stay the petition (Dkt. # 6). For the reasons that follow, the motion to stay is denied without prejudice for petitioner to re-file a motion to stay through his current counsel.
A habeas petitioner who is represented by counsel, such as petitioner, is not entitled to consideration of any pro se motions that he files on his behalf, because he is not entitled to "proceed by means of hybrid representation" in his case. See Jones v. Bradshaw, 138 F. Supp. 3d 921, 923 (N.D. Ohio 2015)(citing United States v. Mosely, 810 F.2d 93, 97 (6th Cir.1987)). Petitioner is represented by competent counsel. Accordingly, the Court will bar petitioner from filing further pro se pleadings while he is represented by counsel. The Court will deny petitioner's pro se motion to stay the petition. (Dkt. # 8). The denial is without prejudice to allow petitioner to re-file such a motion through his current counsel.
s/DenisePage Hood
HON. DENISE PAGE HOOD
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: February 1, 2019