Cardenas-Ornelas v. Baker et al

Filing 33

ORDER directing that to the extent Petitioner seeks withdrawal of counsel, the motion is denied without prejudice. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 4/5/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

***

6

LUIS CARDENAS-ORNELAS,

7
8
9

Case No. 3:17-cv-00461-MMD-CBC
Petitioner,

ORDER

v.
RENEE BAKER, et al.,
Respondents.

10
11

On March 6, 2019, the Court ordered Petitioner’s counsel, David Neidert, to

12

respond to Petitioner’s allegations regarding his representation of Petitioner.1 Counsel

13

has done so (ECF No. 32). Following review of Petitioner’s letters (ECF Nos. 25, 27, 31),

14

and counsel’s response, the Court is not persuaded that withdrawal of counsel is justified.

15

Counsel has met with Petitioner and filed a second amended petition on his behalf, and

16

counsel has provided the second amended petition to Petitioner. Counsel indicates that

17

he will provide all other past and future filings to Petitioner, and that his office is equipped

18

to accept inmate phone calls. Counsel asserts, and the Court has no basis to disagree,

19

that while the petition awaits a response from Respondents, there is little else to do in

20

Petitioner’s case. There is no other indication that a conflict exists between counsel and

21

Petitioner or that counsel is unable to adequately represent Petitioner. Accordingly, to the

22

extent Petitioner seeks withdrawal of counsel, the motion is denied without prejudice.

23

DATED THIS 5th day of April 2018.

24
25

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28

1Since

the Court’s order, Petitioner has sent another letter to the Court regarding
the matter, to which Mr. Neidert has also responded.