Opinion
Case No. 11-CR-20777-DT
09-12-2012
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ANTHONY VAN, Defendant.
ORDER STRIKING DEFENDANT'S "MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT
MATTER JURISDICTION"
Defendant submits a self-written and self-signed "Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction." Defendant, however, enjoys representation by counsel. A party may chose to represent himself or to appear through an attorney, but a party may not maintain a "hybrid" representation, by which he proceeds both through himself and through counsel. See, e.g., United States v. Olson, 576 F.2d 1267, 1269-70 (8th Cir. 1978); United States v. Daniels, 572 F.2d 535, 540 (5th Cir. 1978); Ennis v. LeFevre, 560 F.2d 1072, 1075 (2nd Cir. 1977); United States v. Williams, 534 F.2d 119, 123 (8th Cir. 1976); United States v. Hill, 526 F.2d 1019, 1024-25 (10th Cir. 1975); Move Org. v. City of Phila., 89 F.R.D. 521, 523 n.1 (E.D.Pa.1981); United States ex rel. Snyder v. Mack, 372 F.Supp. 1077, 1078-79 (E.D.Pa.1974). In other words, so long as Defendant's counsel represents Defendant, only Defendant's counsel may submit a paper. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's "Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction" [Dkt. # 28] is STRICKEN.
_________________
ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record on this date, September 12, 2012, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
Lisa Wagner
Case Manager and Deputy Clerk
(313) 234-5522
S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C2 ORDERS\11-20777.VAN.StrikeMotionRepresented.ckb.wpd