Opinion
CR417-208
12-06-2018
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. KARTEU OMAR JENKINS
ORDER
Defendant Karteu Jenkins has filed several purported pro se motions. See doc. 525. The Court has explained to Jenkins that pro se filings by a represented party are null. See doc. 387. Again, in case any confusion remains, the Court's Rules do not permit a represented defendant to file motions pro se, except motions to appoint new counsel or to proceed pro se. S.D. Ga. L. Crim. R. 44.2; see also Cross v. United States, 893 F.2d 1287, 1291-92 (11th Cir. 1990) (a defendant who is represented by counsel has no right to act as his own co-counsel, i.e., there is no right to "hybrid representation" partly by counsel and partly by defendant). Those motions are, therefore DISMISSED as moot. Doc. 525.
Jenkins' motion, perhaps in tacit recognition of the Court's prior Order, asserts that he "is under no agreement that states he cannot file any motions his self [sic]." Doc. 525 at 1. He further suggests that he is entitled to "recognition before the law" based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 6. Id. Jenkins is wrong. As other courts, including the Supreme Court, have explained, the Declaration does not establish any enforceable rights. See Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692, 734 (2004) ("[The Universal Declaration of Human Rights] does not of its own force impose obligations as a matter of international law."); United States v. Chatman, 351 F. App'x 740, 741 (3d Cir. 2009) ("[T]he Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a non-binding declaration that provides no private rights of action."). To the extent that Jenkins' motion seeks leave to serve as his own co-counsel, it is DENIED. --------
Although Jenkins expresses misgivings about counsel's handling of this case, he does not expressly ask for new counsel or to represent himself. See doc. 525 at 1 (mentioning the possibility that counsel's failure to raise issues will waive them). If Jenkins wishes to proceed pro se, he must file a motion clearly expressing that wish, which would trigger the process mandated by Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975). If, after that process, he is granted leave to proceed pro se, he may refile the motions he believes necessary. If he seeks to have new counsel appointed, he must file a motion seeking such an appointment separate from any other relief.
SO ORDERED, this 6th day of December, 2018.
/s/_________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA