Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01148/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01148-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Isaac J.W. Mullins, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-1148-PHX-NVW (LOA)

ORDER

This matter arises on Petitioner’s pro se Motion to Postpone Evidentiary

Hearing, filed on April 16, 2008. (docket # 47)

On April 4, 2008, this Court appointed attorney Joy Bertrand to represent

Petitioner in an evidentiary hearing set for Thursday June 5, 2008 at 1:30 p.m. (docket #45)

Because “an evidentiary hearing is warranted, the judge must appoint an attorney to

represent a petitioner who qualifies to have counsel appointed under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A.”

Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 proceedings. Although Ms. Bertrand has yet to file

any pleading on Petitioner’s behalf and nothing is expected from her until on or before May

23, 2008, this Court will not permit Petitioner to file pleadings on his behalf when he is

represented by counsel, except, of course, a motion to represent himself without assistance

by counsel.

District courts may refuse to entertain pro per motions filed by defendants who

have legal representation. Abdullah v. United States, 240 F.3d 683, 686 (8th Cir. 2001), cert.

denied, 504 U.S. 921 (1992). Although a litigant “has the right to represent himself or

Case 2:06-cv-01148-NVW-LOA Document 48 Filed 04/18/08 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 Local Rule 83.3(c)(2) provides:

Appearance by Represented Party. Whenever a party has appeared by an attorney, that

party cannot thereafter appear or act in that party's own behalf in the cause, or take any

steps therein, unless an order of substitution shall first have been made by the Court

after notice to the attorney of each such party, and to the opposite party. The attorney

who has appeared of record for any party shall represent such party in the cause and

shall be recognized by the Court and by all the parties to the cause as having control of

the client's case, in all proper ways, and shall, as such attorney, sign all papers which

are to be signed on behalf of the client, provided that the Court may in its discretion

hear a party in open court, notwithstanding the fact that that party has appeared or is

represented by an attorney.

- 2 -

herself pro se or to be represented by an attorney,” United States v. Olano, 62 F.3d 1180,

1193 (9th Cir.1995) (citing United States v. Halbert, 640 F.2d 1000, 1009 (9th Cir.1981)

(per curiam)), he or she “ ‘does not have a constitutional right to “hybrid” representation.’ ”

Id. (quoting United States v. Kienenberger, 13 F.3d 1354, 1356 (9th Cir.1994)); McKaskle v.

Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168, 183 (1984). Moreover, the District of Arizona’s Local Rule

83.3(c)(2)1

 extends to district and magistrate judges the discretion to deny hybridrepresentation.

If Petitioner wishes to continue the evidentiary hearing, he needs to discuss the

matter directly with his court-appointed lawyer: Ms. Joy Bertrand, Esq.; phone: (480) 656-

3919; fax: (480) 361-4694. Future motions and other requests by Petitioner when

represented by counsel will be summarily denied.

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s pro se Motion to Postpone Evidentiary

Hearing, docket # 47, is DENIED without prejudice.

DATED this 18th day of April, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-01148-NVW-LOA Document 48 Filed 04/18/08 Page 2 of 2