Opinion
13-cv-14695
11-23-2021
OMAR RASHAD POUNCY, Petitioner, v. MATT MACAULEY, Respondent.
ORDER STRIKING PRO SE FILING (ECF No. 442) BY PETITIONER OMAR RASHAD POUNCY
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
In this habeas action, Petitioner Omar Rashad Pouncy is (and has been) ably represented by a truly outstanding team of attorneys. They have made numerous appropriate and effective filings with the Court. Pouncy has nonetheless repeatedly filed his own briefs and submissions in an apparent effort to supplement the work of his attorneys. And this Court has repeatedly entered orders advising Pouncy that he may not do so - that he may not simultaneously proceed both through counsel and pro se. (See, e.g., Orders, ECF Nos. 274, 340, and 384.) Indeed, less than a month ago, the Court struck four additional pro se filings by Pouncy and again advised him that he should not file pro se briefs that supplement the work of his counsel. (See Order, ECF No. 432.)
On November 4, 2021, Pouncy filed a pro se response to Respondent's currently-pending motion to stay. (See Pouncy Resp., ECF No. 442.) Pouncy's counsel has already filed a response to that motion on Pouncy's behalf. (See Pouncy's Counsel's Resp., ECF No. 436.) For all of the reasons stated in the Court's prior orders striking Pouncy's pro se filings, and because Pouncy's pro se response violates the Court's prior orders, the Court STRIKES Pouncy's pro se filing (ECF No. 442) from the record.
IT IS SO ORDERED.