1

The court also notes that Defendant is currently proceeding in this case on

appeal. Filing of a notice of appeal transfers jurisdiction over the merits of the appeal to

the appellate court. Workman v. Tate, 958 F.2d 164, 167 (6th Cir.1992). Because

Defendant has filed a notice of appeal, this court lacks jurisdiction to address this

motion or re-open the case. Id. at 167-68; see also Raum v. Norwood, 93 F. App’x 693,

695 (6th Cir. 2004) (plaintiffs deprived district court of jurisdiction over their motion for

reconsideration by filing notice of appeal before district court decided their motion to

reconsider); Dipofi v. Eichenlaub, No. 08-10635, 2008 WL 4239121, *1 (E.D. Mich.

Sept. 11, 2008) (petitioner deprived district court of jurisdiction over motion to amend

judgment by filing notice of appeal before district court decided the motion). 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 09-20349

VALENTINE BALOGUN,

Defendant.

_________________________/

ORDER STRIKING PRO SE MOTION

On June 9, 2010, Defendant Valentine Balogun filed a pro se motion for an order

producing Grand Jury materials. The court will strike the pro se motion because, at the

time of the filing, Defendant was represented by counsel. Thus, all filings must be made

by the attorney of record.1

Defendant is not entitled to represent himself while simultaneously represented

by counsel. A criminal defendant has the right to appear pro se or by counsel, a right

protected by both the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and federal

statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1654 (“In all courts of the United States the parties may plead
2

and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel . . . .”); see also Faretta v.

California, 422 U.S. 806, 807, 832 (1975); United States v. Daniels, 572 F.2d 535, 540

(5th Cir. 1978); Ennis v. LeFevre, 560 F.2d 1072, 1075 (2d Cir. 1977); United States v.

Williams, 534 F.2d 119, 123 (8th Cir. 1976). This right, however, is disjunctive, thus a

party may choose either to represent himself or to appear through an attorney. There is

no right to “hybrid” representation that would result in simultaneous or alternating selfrepresentation and representation by counsel. A person represented by counsel must

rely upon that counsel. See, e.g., United States v. Olson, 576 F.2d 1267, 1269-70 (8th

Cir. 1978); Daniels, 572 F.2d at 540; Ennis, 560 F.2d at 1075; Williams, 534 F.2d at

123; 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); cf. Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349,

1352-53 (9th Cir. 1981) (once counsel is appointed, prisoner has no right to assistance

from inmate writ-writer). In light of this case law, the court will only accept motions filed

by Defendant’s attorney of record. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s June 9, 2010, motion for an order to produce

Grand Jury minutes and materials [Dkt. # 46] is hereby STRICKEN from the docket of

this court. 

S/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: June 23, 2010

I I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record
3

on this date, June 23, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C3 ORDERS\09-20349.BALOGUN.ProSeStrike.wpd