Branon v. United States of America

Filing 22

ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong GRANTING PETITIONERS 21 REQUEST TO PROCEED PRO SE AND DENYING 14 COUNSELS REQUEST FOR SUBSTITUTION. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/21/2014)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 OAKLAND DIVISION 4 5 MARK BRANON, Petitioner, 6 7 vs. 8 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 9 Case No: C 13-1350 SBA ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S REQUEST TO PROCEED PRO SE AND DENYING COUNSEL’S REQUEST FOR SUBSTITUTION Defendant. 10 11 Petitioner Mark Branon, a federal prisoner, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas 12 corpus (which is liberally construed as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255) to challenge his 13 federal conviction suffered in the District of Arizona. The Government has filed a response 14 and Petitioner has filed a pro se traverse. 15 Presently before the Court is a “Notice of Appearance of Private Counsel Request 16 for Approval of U.S. District Court,” in which attorney Roger Hanson seeks leave to 17 substitute in as counsel for Petitioner. Dkt. 14. Subsequently, Petitioner filed a request that 18 he be allowed to proceed pro se because neither he nor his family have been able to contact 19 Mr. Hanson. Dkt. 21. Although Petitioner’s request was docketed in ECF and served on 20 Mr. Branon, he has not responded to Petitioner’s request and deadline to do so has since 21 passed. Accordingly, 22 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Mr. Hanson’s request to substitute in as counsel 23 of record is DENIED, and Petitioner’s request to proceed pro se is GRANTED. This Order 24 terminates Docket 14 and 21. The Clerk shall indicated that Mr. Hanson is terminated as 25 counsel for Petitioner. 26 27 28 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 19, 2014 ______________________________ SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG United States District Judge

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?