Pruitt v. Mays

Filing 27

ORDER granting 24 MOTION to Substitute Counsel filed by Corinio Pruitt. Signed by Judge John Thomas Fowlkes, Jr on 07/03/2024. (lh)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION CORINIO PRUITT, Petitioner, V. KENNETH NELSEN, Warden, Riverbend, Maximum Security Institution, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 2:22-cv-02855-JTF-atc CAPITAL CASE ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE COUNSEL On June 16, 2024, Petitioner Corinio Pruitt’s counsel filed Petitioner’s Motion to Substitute Counsel. (ECF No. 24.) On June 27, 2024, Petitioner supplemented his motion. (ECF No. 26.) Petitioner requests that the Federal Defender Organization for the Middle District of Tennessee (“TN-M FDO”) be allowed to withdraw and that the Federal Public Defender for the Western District of North Carolina (“NC-W FPD”) and its Capital Habeas Unit for the Fourth Circuit (“CHU”) be substituted as counsel under 18 U.S.C. § 3599. (ECF No. 24 at PageID 10738.) Petitioner asserts that the Chief Judges of the United States Courts of Appeal for the Fourth and Sixth Circuits have no objection to the appointment. (Id. at PageID 10740.) Petitioner states that Gretchen Swift, an Assistant Federal Public Defender, and Gerald W. King, the CHU Chief, will be assigned to the case. (Id. at PageID 10740-41.) Petitioner’s counsel states that Swift and King are both experienced attorneys who have been admitted to practice in several courts, have satisfied the requirements of 18 U.S.C. §§ 3599(c) & (d), and have the ability to proceed with Petitioner’s case in a timely manner. (Id.; see ECF No. 26-1 at PageID 10748-50; see also ECF No. 26-2 at PageID 10752-53.) For good cause shown, the Motion to Substitute Counsel is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 3rd day of July, 2024. s/John T. Fowlkes, Jr.___________ JOHN T. FOWLKES, JR. United States District Judge 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?