Opinion
Criminal Case No. 10-cr-00317-REB-01.
October 3, 2011
ORDER
The matter is before me on the notice [#316] filed pro se by defendant, Curtis L. Morris, on September 28, 2011. I strike the notice.
"[#316]" is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific paper by the court's electronic case filing and management system (CM/ECF). I use this convention throughout this order.
As I rehearsed in my previous Order [#313] entered September 29, 2011, when a defendant is represented by counsel, as Mr. Morris is, this court will not accept pro se filings from that defendant. Such a pro se filing is improper, whether in the form of a notice, a motion, or otherwise. See United States v. Nichols , 374 F.3d 959, 964 n. 2 (10th Cir. 2004) (citing United States v. Guadalupe , 979 F.2d 790, 795 (10th Cir. 1992)), reviewed on other grounds, 125 S.Ct. 1082 (2005).
Once again, the paper filed by Mr. Morris purports to be a notice, However, as did the previous notice [#312], this new notice both seeks and demands relief from this court. Therefore, this so-called notice is a motion subject to the criminal practice standards and extant orders of this court and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, specifically, Rules 12 and 47. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
For further analysis of this issue, see my Order [#235] entered May 17, 2011, at pages 2-3.
1. That the notice [#316] filed pro se by defendant, Curtis L. Morris, on September 28, 2011, is STRICKEN; and
2. That subject to the penalties for contempt of court, as long as the defendant, Curtis L. Morris, is represented in this action by an attorney, he is ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from filing papers in any form in this action without the advance permission of this court.