U.S. v. Morris

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. 1. CURTIS L. MORRIS, Defendant

Court: United States District Court, D. Colorado

Date published: Oct 18, 2011

Criminal Case No. 10-cr-00317-REB-01 (D. Colo. Oct. 18, 2011)

Opinion

Criminal Case No. 10-cr-00317-REB-01.

October 18, 2011

ORDER

ROBERT BLACKBURN, District Judge

The matter is before me sua sponte on the notices [#322]¹ and [#323] filed pro se by defendant, Curtis L. Morris, on October 13 and 14, 2011, respectively. I strike the notices.

1 "[#322]" 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, and reiterated in my Order [#317] entered October 3, 2011, when a defendant is represented by counsel, as Mr. Morris is, this court will not accept pro se filings from that defendant. Such pro se filings are improper, whether in the form of a notice, a motion, or otherwise. See United States v. Nichols , 374 F.3d 959, 964 n. 2 (10^th Cir. 2004) (citing United States v. Guadalupe , 979 F.2d 790, 795 (10^th Cir. 1992)), reviewed on other grounds, 125 S.Ct. 1082 (2005).

Once again, the papers filed by Mr. Morris purport to be notices, However, as did his previous notices [#312] and [#316], these two, new notices both seek and demand relief and/or response from this court and/or the government. Therefore, once again, these latest so-called notices constitute motions subject to the criminal practice standards and extant orders of this court and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, specifically, Rules 12 and 47.²

2 Once again, for further analysis of this issue, see my Order [#235] entered May 17, 2011, at pages 2-3.

Additionally, in my Order [#317] entered October 3, 2011, I provided expressly,

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.

Order [#317] at 2, ¶ 2. (Emphasis in original). Accordingly, the filing of these latest notices appear to violate my order [#317]. Arguably, the filing of these latest notices in violation of my order [#317] constitute contempt of court. Thus, an order to show cause should issue requiring Mr. Morris to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of this court and punished accordingly.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. That the notices [#322] and [#323] filed pro se by defendant, Curtis L. Morris, on October 13 and 14, 2011, respectively, are 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.