Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kenneth H. Casner v. Kathleen Dickinson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


August 1, 2012

KENNETH H. CASNER,
PETITIONER,
v.
KATHLEEN DICKINSON, WARDEN, RESPONDENT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DEEMING COUNSEL'S PURPORTED SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL TO BE A MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE COUNSEL ) (DOC. 21)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE ATTORNEYS OF RECORD (DOC. 21) INFORMATIONAL ORDER TO COUNSEL

Petitioner is a state prisoner who has proceeded pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), Petitioner has consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge to conduct all further proceedings in the case, including the entry of final judgment, by manifesting consent in a signed writing filed by Petitioner on July 13, 2012 (doc. 22). Pending before the Court is Petitioner's counsel's purported substitution of counsel filed on July 13, 2012 (doc. 21).

On June 7, 2012, attorneys Robert J. Beles, Paul McCarthy, and David Reagan filed what was entitled as an "APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL," but which was actually a proposed substitution of counsel which was not signed by Petitioner and did not include a place for the Court to approve the substitution of counsel as required by the pertinent rule of court. The Court issued an order striking the proposed a proposed substitution of counsel and informing counsel of Local Rule 182.

On July 13, 2012, counsel again filed what purported to be a substitution of counsel which contained the required signatures but did not include a place for the Court to approve the substitution of counsel as required by the pertinent rule of court.

Although the latest filing is subject to being stricken because of noncompliance with Local Rule 182, the Court has already expended its time and resources to correct counsel's omissions without success; it appears that another attempt to procure a formally sufficient substitution from these attorneys would be futile. Because Petitioner's signature indicates that Petitioner intends to substitute these attorneys as his counsel, the Court will deem counsel's purported substitution to be a motion for substitution of counsel, as Rule 182 requires. The Court will grant the motion.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1) Counsel's purported substitution of counsel filed on July 13, 2012 is DEEMED to be a motion to substitute counsel pursuant to Local Rule 182(g); and

2) Counsel's motion to substitute as counsel for Petitioner, who previously proceeded pro se, is GRANTED, and it is ORDERED that pursuant to Local Rule 182(a) and (g), Robert J. Beles, Paul McCarthy, and David Reagan are SUBSTITUTED as attorneys of record for Petitioner Kenneth H. Casner.

Counsel are INFORMED that Local Rule 110 provides that a failure of counsel or of a party to comply with the Local Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds of imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute, rule, or within the inherent power of the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20120801

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.