Casner v. Dickinson

Filing 27

ORDER DEEMING Counsel's Purported Substitution of Counsel to be a Motion to Substitute Counsel; ORDER GRANTING 21 Motion to Substitute Attorneys of Record; and Informational Order to Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 8/1/2012. Attorney Robert Joseph Beles, David Thomas Reagan, and Paul G. McCarthy for Kenneth H. Casner added. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
KENNETH H. CASNER,
10
Petitioner,
11
v.
12
KATHLEEN DICKINSON, Warden,
13
Respondent.
14
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:10-cv—01081-SKO-HC
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

16
Petitioner is a state prisoner who has proceeded pro se with
17
a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
18
§ 2254.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), Petitioner has

19
consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate
20
Judge to conduct all further proceedings in the case, including
21
the entry of final judgment, by manifesting consent in a signed
22
writing filed by Petitioner on July 13, 2012 (doc. 22).
23
Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s counsel’s purported
24
substitution of counsel filed on July 13, 2012 (doc. 21).
25
On June 7, 2012, attorneys Robert J. Beles, Paul McCarthy,
26
and David Reagan filed what was entitled as an “APPEARANCE OF
27
COUNSEL,” but which was actually a proposed substitution of
28
1

1

counsel which was not signed by Petitioner and did not include a

2

place for the Court to approve the substitution of counsel as

3

required by the pertinent rule of court.

4

order striking the proposed a proposed substitution of counsel

5

and informing counsel of Local Rule 182.

6

The Court issued an

On July 13, 2012, counsel again filed what purported to be a

7

substitution of counsel which contained the required signatures

8

but did not include a place for the Court to approve the

9

substitution of counsel as required by the pertinent rule of

10
11

court.
Although the latest filing is subject to being stricken

12

because of noncompliance with Local Rule 182, the Court has

13

already expended its time and resources to correct counsel’s

14

omissions without success; it appears that another attempt to

15

procure a formally sufficient substitution from these attorneys

16

would be futile.

17

Petitioner intends to substitute these attorneys as his counsel,

18

the Court will deem counsel’s purported substitution to be a

19

motion for substitution of counsel, as Rule 182 requires.

20

Court will grant the motion.

Because Petitioner’s signature indicates that

The

21

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

22

1) Counsel’s purported substitution of counsel filed on

23

July 13, 2012 is DEEMED to be a motion to substitute counsel

24

pursuant to Local Rule 182(g); and

25

2) Counsel’s motion to substitute as counsel for Petitioner,

26

who previously proceeded pro se, is GRANTED, and it is ORDERED

27

that pursuant to Local Rule 182(a) and (g), Robert J. Beles, Paul

28

McCarthy, and David Reagan are SUBSTITUTED as attorneys of record
2

1

for Petitioner Kenneth H. Casner.

2

Counsel are INFORMED that Local Rule 110 provides that a

3

failure of counsel or of a party to comply with the Local Rules

4

or with any order of the Court may be grounds of imposition by

5

the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute, rule,

6

or within the inherent power of the Court.

7
8
9
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
11
12

Dated:
ie14hj

August 1, 2012

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3