Opinion
Criminal 22-263
06-20-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MAURICE WHITE, JR., Defendant.
ORDER OF COURT
W. SCOTT HARDY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
AND NOW, this 20th day of June, 2023, upon consideration of Defendant's pro se Motion to Dismiss Indictment (Docket No. 39), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that said Motion is DENIED, as such filing was made pro se while Defendant is represented by counsel in this case. See United States v. Turner, 677 F.3d 570, 578 (3d Cir. 2012) (“Pro se litigants have no right to ‘hybrid representation' because ‘[a] defendant does not have a constitutional right to choreograph special appearances by counsel.' ”) (quoting McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168, 183 (1984) (no constitutional right to hybrid representation); see also United States v. D'Amario, 268 Fed.Appx. 179, 180 (3d Cir. 2008) (“The Constitution does not confer a right to proceed simultaneously by counsel and pro se, and the District Court was not obligated to consider [the defendant's] pro se motions in light of his being represented by counsel on direct appeal.”).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the submission of pro se filings by an individual represented by counsel is not permitted by this Court. As Defendant is represented by counsel, any future filings are to be made solely through counsel of record and filed with the Office of the Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
Defendant previously was advised of this requirement when the Court entered a similar Order on November 9, 2022 denying his prior pro se Motion to Dismiss Indictment. (See Docket No. 27).