Frye v. Calderon, et al

Filing 666

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 4/2/15 ORDERING that Petitioner's 3/30/15 Motion of Objection 665 is DENIED. The court will not consider any of the substantive arguments made in Petitioner's pro per filings because he is represented by counsel. E.D. Cal., Local Rule 191(c). The Clerk is directed to serve this document on petitioner Jerry Grant Frye by U.S. mail.(Mena-Sanchez, L)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JERRY GRANT FRYE, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 No. 2:99-cv-0628 KJM CKD DEATH PENALTY CASE v. WARDEN, San Quentin State Prison, 15 ORDER Respondent. 16 Petitioner Frye has filed a pro se motion for withdrawal of the allegations of mental 17 18 incompetence from his petition. (ECF No. 665). Because petitioner has appointed counsel to 19 represent him in this matter, “the Court generally will not consider pro se documents about the 20 presentation of his or her case.” E.D. Cal., Local Rule 191(c). “However, the Court generally 21 will consider pro se motions concerning petitioner's representation by appointed counsel.” Id. Petitioner complains that his attorneys raised issues regarding his mental competence 22 23 without his approval and have taken advantage of his sister Alice, who he claims is mentally ill. 24 Petitioner takes issue with a number of statements Alice made during her deposition. Petitioner 25 wants all allegations that he is mentally incompetent and all documents associated with Alice, in 26 particular the transcript of her 2008 deposition (ECF No. 519), removed from his petition and 27 these proceedings. 28 ///// 1 1 While petitioner argues his counsel have a conflict of interest, he is essentially arguing 2 that he has such a serious conflict with them that court intervention is required. Petitioner does 3 not, however, ask that counsel be relieved. 4 This court will not interfere with the attorney-client relationship absent an “irreconcilable 5 conflict” resulting in a “complete breakdown of communication that substantially interfere[s] 6 with the attorney-client relationship.” Murray v. Schriro, 746 F.3d 418, 457-58 (9th Cir. 2014) 7 (citations omitted). An issue between attorney and client regarding strategy does not alone 8 demonstrate an irreconcilable conflict. Id. at 458. Moreover, petitioner is not entitled to a 9 “lawyer with whom he can, in his view, have a ‘meaningful attorney-client relationship.’” United 10 States v. Moore, 159 F.3d 1154, 1158 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1 11 (1983)). Finally, even were the court to find such an irreconcilable conflict, the appropriate 12 remedy would be to relieve counsel of their duties. 13 Because petitioner’s counsel has the right, and the obligation, to determine the litigation 14 strategy for these proceedings, because petitioner has failed to demonstrate an irreconcilable 15 conflict with his attorneys, and because petitioner has not sought to be relieved of counsel, this 16 court will deny petitioner’s motion. 17 Accordingly, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 18 1. Petitioner’s March 30, 2015 “Motion of Objection” (ECF No. 665) is DENIED. 19 2. The court will not consider any of the substantive arguments made in petitioner’s pro 20 21 22 23 per filings because he is represented by counsel. E.D. Cal., Local Rule 191(c). 3. The Clerk of the Court is direct to serve this document on petitioner Jerry Grant Frye by U.S. mail. Dated: April 2, 2015 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 Frye pro per filing.or 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?