Doolin v. Wong
Filing
166
ORDER RE: (1) APPOINTMENT OF REPLACEMENT COUNSEL and (2) DISQUALIFICATION OF DISTRICT JUDGE re 164 signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 12/24/2014. (Lundstrom, T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
KEITH ZON DOOLIN,
12
Petitioner,
13
14
15
Case No. 1:09-cv-01453-AWI-SAB
DEATH PENALTY CASE
v.
ORDER RE: (1) APPOINTMENT OF
REPLACEMENT COUNSEL, and (2)
KEVIN CHAPPELL, AS WARDEN OF SAN DISQUALIFICATION OF DISTRICT JUDGE
QUENTIN CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON,
(ECF NO. 164)
Respondent.
16
17
18
19
20
On December 11, 2014, Petitioner filed a pro se request seeking appointment of
21 replacement CJA counsel and disqualification of the District Judge assigned to this case.
22
Currently, CJA attorney Michael Levine is Doolin’s federal counsel of record. The
23 federal proceedings are being held in abeyance pending exhaustion of state remedies before the
24 California Supreme Court. Federal proceedings will not resume until the California Supreme
25 Court has issued a final ruling on Doolin’s pending state habeas corpus petition. See In Re
26 Doolin, S197391.
27
The matter remains under submission to the California Supreme Court.
On July 1, 2013, the Court ordered the case referred to the Selection Board for the
28
1
1 Eastern District of California for recommendation of replacement counsel for Mr. Levine. To
2 date, the Court has not received the Selection Board’s recommendation. The Court will issue a
3 new order reminding the Selection Board of the need to appoint replacement counsel. The Court
4 will appoint replacement counsel after the Selection Board makes its recommendation.
The pro se request regarding disqualification of the District Judge will not be considered
5
6 because Petitioner is represented by appointed counsel. Local Rule 191(c).
7
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
9 Dated:
December 24, 2014
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?