Opinion ID: 3161896
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Rohner’s Pro Se Filings

Text: In general, matters that “can broadly be labeled ‘supervision of litigation’” fall within the sound exercise of a district court’s discretion. Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 558 n.1 (1988); Providence Baptist Church v. Hillandale Comm., Ltd., 425 F.3d 309, 313 (6th Cir. 2005). The decision of whether to address issues raised in a document filed pro se by a represented party is a supervisory issue committed to a court’s discretion. See United States v. Martinez, 588 F.3d 301, 328 (6th Cir. 2009) (“declin[ing] to address” arguments raised on appeal by a represented party in a pro se brief). We therefore review these determinations for abuse of discretion. 11 As previously discussed, Rohner has waived this argument on appeal. 12 As stated above, the district court did not err in denying this motion. - 15 - Case Nos. 14-4135; 15-3083 United States v. Rohner Though Rohner claims a right to engage in partial self-representation, no such right exists in the federal system. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1654, “[i]n all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein.” This court and others have interpreted this provision as allowing a litigant to represent himself pro se or to obtain representation—but not both. See United States v. Flowers, 428 F. App’x 526, 530 (6th Cir. 2011); O’Reilly v. N.Y. Times Co., 692 F.2d 863, 868 (2d Cir. 1982) (Friendly, J.); United States v. Shea, 508 F.2d 82, 86 (5th Cir. 1975). While a district court “may in [its] discretion permit a party to enjoy both halves of the statutory right, Section 1654 does not itself confer any right to ‘hybrid representation.’” O’Reilly, 692 F.2d at 868 (citations omitted). Rohner did not, therefore, have a right to participate in his case as “pro se counsel” or “pro se co-counsel” while he was represented by an attorney. Rohner has not otherwise established that the district court abused its discretion in disregarding his filings. This court and many district courts in this circuit routinely refuse to consider materials filed pro se by represented parties. See Flowers, 428 F. App’x at 530 (collecting cases). Rohner provides no information that would place the present matter outside the general practice—especially considering the prolixity of his pro se filings. Therefore, the district court did not err by refusing to consider these documents.