Opinion
1:22-cv-01066-JDB-jay Re 1:19-cr-10120-JDB-1
03-19-2024
ORLANDO MAYS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S PRO SE REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO REPLY
J. DANIEL BREEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The Petitioner, Orlando Mays, filed a counseled motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on April 18, 2022, (Docket Entry (“D.E.”) 1), to which the Government responded on August 9, 2022, (D.E. 11). In an order entered June 15, 2022, the Court instructed that "Petitioner may, if he chooses, submit a reply within twenty-eight days from the filing of the response." (D.E. 6.) On March 18, 2024, the Court docketed a document received from Mays in which he requested leave to "file a reply as a pro se litigant." (D.E. 13.)
The request is DENIED for two reasons. First, the docket reflects that he is still represented by counsel. There is no constitutional right to demand “hybrid representation.” United States v. Mosely, 810 F.2d 93, 98 (6th Cir. 1987). Second, pursuant to the Court's June 15, 2022, order, any request for permission to reply must have been filed within twenty-eight days of the Government's August 9, 2022, response. (See D.E. 11). Petitioner placed the instant motion into the prison mail system on February 21, 2024, nearly a year and a half after the due date to file a reply expired. (See D.E. 13-1.)
IT IS SO ORDERED