Wells v. Lumpkin

604 F.Supp.3d 412

Amos Joseph WELLS III, Petitioner,

v.Bobby LUMPKIN, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent.

No. 4:21-CV-1384-O

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division.

Signed May 20, 2022

Georgette Patrice Oden, G. Oden PLLC, Cedar Park, TX, Jeremy Don Schepers-FPD, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Dallas, TX, Leigh W. Davis, Bedford, TX, for Petitioner.

Eran Shemuel Sharon, Edward L. Marshall, Texas Office of the Attorney General, Austin, TX, for Respondent.

ORDER DISMISSING PRO SE MOTIONS

Reed O'Connor, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

The matters before the Court are (1) Wells’ pro se letter filed May 19, 2022 (ECF No. 15) complaining about his counsels’ failure to visit him in person; (2) Well's pro se motion seeking an Order from this Court directing his former state habeas counsel to turn over Wells’ case file to Wells, filed May 16, 2022 (ECF No. 16); and (3) Wells’ pro se letter filed May 16, 2022 (ECF No. 17) again complaining about his federal habeas counsels’ insistence on communicating with Wells via the mails. Because Wells apparently did not serve any counsel of record with copies of the foregoing pro se pleadings and motions and because none of Wells’ pro se pleadings and motions include neither a certificate of service indicating that he served opposing counsel nor a Certificate of Conference as required by Local Rule CV-7.1(b), this Court STRIKES same.

Wells is currently represented by two attorneys appointed by this court. He is not entitled to hybrid representation in this cause. See McKaskle v. Wiggins , 465 U.S. 168, 182-83, 104 S.Ct. 944, 79 L.Ed.2d 122 (1984) (there is no constitutional right to hybrid representation); United States v. Villafranca , 844 F.3d 199, 199 (5th Cir. 2016) (holding the same rule applied on appeal); United States v. Ogbonna , 184 F.3d 447, 449 & n.1 (5th Cir. 1999) (holding the same). The Fifth Circuit has recognized the same rule applies in a wide variety of contexts. See United States v. Sanders , 843 F.3d 1050, 1053-54 (5th Cir. 2016) (holding a criminal defendant represents by counsel had no right to file a pro se motion challenging the validity of his plea); Bagwell v. Dretke , 372 F.3d 748, 752 n.6 (5th Cir. 2004) (holding a state habeas corpus applicant had no right to hybrid representation before the state court); United States v. Daniels , 572 F.2d 535, 540 (5th Cir. 1978) (it is settled law that a criminal defendant has no right to hybrid representation). The same rule applies in the state courts. Smith v. Collins , 977 F.2d 951, 962 (5th Cir. 1992) ; Neal v. Texas , 870 F.2d 312, 315-16 (5th Cir. 1989).

Insofar as Wells complains that his former state habeas counsel has failed to furnish him with copies of relevant files, this court has previously explained that such complaints raise only issued of state law and this court can exercise no jurisdiction over same. Ricks v. Lumpkin , 541 F.Supp.3d 733, 734-35 (N.D. Tex. 2021). Disputes between a criminal defendant and his or her former counsel over the custody of case files are routinely resolved in state court after exhaustion of the State Bar of Texas’ grievance system. Id. Complaints about the custody or possession of attorney files raise purely matters of state law. See In re Harris , 491 S.W.3d 332, 335 & n.7 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (citing In re McCann , 422 S.W.3d 701, 705-10 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (relying exclusively on state law authorities to hold that a client owns his or her trial file)).

Wells was represented during his state habeas corpus proceeding by employees of an agency of the State of Texas, i.e., the Texas Office of Capital and Forensic Writs. Absent an alleged violation of federal law the Eleventh Amendment generally forbids federal court intervention in a civil matter such as Wells’ dispute with his former state habeas counsel. See Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson , ––– U.S. ––––, 142 S. Ct. 522 532, 211 L.Ed.2d 316 (2021) (recognizing that, except when injunctive relief is sought for a violation of federal law, the ...