O'Keefe v. LeGrand

Filing 49

ORDER granting Petitioner's ECF No. 39 Motion to Withdraw Counsel and Proceed Pro Se; permitting Mark Eibert to withdraw effective immediately; giving Petitioner 90 days to file pro se amended petition; denying Peti tioner's ECF Nos. 33 Motion for Leave to File Motions, 36 Motion for Leave of Court to File Petition for Writ of Mandamus, and 38 Motion for Leave of Court; granting Petitioner's ECF Nos. 42 Counseled Motion for Ruling on Mot ion to Withdraw and 34 and 44 Counseled Motions for Extension of Time; granting Respondents' ECF No. 46 Motion to Strike Fugitive Supplemental Petition; directing Clerk to strike ECF No. 45 Supplemental Petition. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 2/1/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

BRIAN KERRY O’KEEFE,

10

Case No. 3:14-cv-00477-RCJ-VPC
Petitioner,

ORDER

v.
11
ROBERT LEGRAND, et al.,
12
Respondents.
13
14

As set forth in this court’s order dated August 23, 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of

15

Appeals issued its mandate remanding this case for further proceedings on August 19,

16

2016 (ECF No. 32).

17

Petitioner Brian Kerry O’Keefe currently is represented by CJA counsel. Now

18

before the court is O’Keefe’s pro se motion to withdraw counsel (ECF No. 39). O’Keefe

19

indicates that the attorney-client relationship has completely broken down. Counsel for

20

O’Keefe filed a response in which he details the work he has undertaken in

21

representation of O’Keefe, but he also indicates that O’Keefe does not trust him and he

22

agrees that the attorney-client relationship has completely broken down. Good cause

23

appearing, the motion to withdraw counsel and proceed pro se (ECF No. 39) is granted.

24

O’Keefe filed several other motions pro se, despite the fact that he is represented

25

by counsel. These fugitive filings are not properly before the court and shall be denied.

26

The court notes that in one motion—a motion for leave to file a petition for writ of

27

mandamus—O’Keefe claims that Nevada Department of Corrections personnel

28

mishandled his legal mail and that his counsel never received two boxes of legal
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

materials that O’Keefe mailed (ECF No. 36). The court notes that petitioner has an
operative petition on file (see ECF No. 14). Therefore, while he may choose to file an
amended petition, he is not required to do so. Moreover, Habeas Rule 5 provides that
respondents shall provide the relevant state-court records with their response to the
petition. It is, therefore, unclear what further materials O’Keefe might need.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner’s motion to withdraw counsel and
proceed pro se (ECF No. 39) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mark Eibert is permitted to withdraw as counsel
for the petitioner, effective immediately.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within ninety (90) days of the date of this
order, petitioner shall file his pro se amended petition or a notice that he intends to
proceed with the petition on file at ECF No. 14. The provisions of this court’s scheduling
order dated August 23, 2016 (ECF No. 32), otherwise remain in effect, with the due
dates for briefing to run from the date that petitioner files his amended petition or files a
notice that he shall proceed on the current petition at ECF No. 14.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for leave to file motions (ECF
No. 33), motion for leave of court to file petition for writ of mandamus (ECF No. 36), and
motion for leave of court (ECF No. 38) are all DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s counseled motion for ruling on
motion to withdraw (ECF No. 42) and counseled motions for extension of time (ECF
Nos. 34 and 44) are all GRANTED.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

1
2
3
4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents’ motion to strike fugitive
supplemental petition (ECF No. 46) is GRANTED. The Clerk SHALL STRIKE the
supplemental petition at ECF No. 45. Petitioner may now, going forward, proceed in pro
se as described in this order.

5
6

DATED: 1 February 2017.

7
8

ROBERT C. JONES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3