*1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff, v. Case No. 4:10-cr-40049-JPG PIETER ROOR,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
J. PHIL GILBERT, DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter comes before the Court on review of defendant Pieter Roor’s letter to the Court. (Doc. 127.) The letter moves the Court for various forms of relief, and thus the Court will consider it to be a motion. Roor filed this motion pro se , although he is represented by attorney Bobby Bailey. “[A] defendant who is represented by counsel relinquishes the right to file his own pro se submissions.” United States v. Khatib , 606 F. App’x 845, 847 (7th Cir. 2015) (citing United States v. Williams, 495 F.3d 810, 813 (7th Cir. 2007)). “Representation by counsel and self-representation are mutually exclusive.” Cain v. Peters , 972 F.2d 748, 750 (7th Cir. 1992). So-called “hybrid representation” confuses and extends matters at trial and in other proceedings. See United States v. Oreye , 263 F.3d 669, 672-73 (7th Cir. 2001). The Court may strike as improper any such pro se motions. See, e.g., United States v. Gwiazdzinski , 141 F.3d 784, 787 (7th Cir. 1998). The Court hereby ORDERS that Roor’s letter to the Court (Doc. 127) be STRICKEN .
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: DECEMBER 1, 2017
s/ J. Phil Gilbert J. PHIL GILBERT DISTRICT JUDGE