Rook v. Holbrook

Filing 46

ORDER DENYTING 42 MOTION TO CONSIDER PRO SE PLEADINGS signed by Hon. Brian A Tsuchida.(AE)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8

GUY ADAM ROOK,
Petitioner,

9

11

DONALD HOLBROOK,
Respondent.

12
13

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
CONSIDER PRO SE PLEADINGS
DKTS. 42, 43.

v.

10

CASE NO. C18-233 JCC-BAT

In March 2018, the Court appointed counsel to represent petitioner in this federal habeas

14

corpus action. Dkt. 8. Since then, counsel has represented petitioner and litigated this matter on

15

his behalf. On September 23, 2019, petitioner’s counsel filed a Reply in Support of Habeas

16

Petition, Dkt. 41, a Motion to Consider Pro Se Filing and attached a pro se supplemental brief,

17

Dkt. 42; petitioner also filed that day a declaration in support of his pro se supplemental brief.

18

Dkt. 43.

19

Petitioner’s counsel contends the Court should permit the pro se filing because petitioner

20

has difficulties trusting his lawyers although counsel speak with petitioner on a weekly basis and

21

have traveled to Walla Walla to meet with him. Counsel argues granting the motion will help

22

petitioner be more confident in the fairness of the proceedings and that respondent will not be

23

prejudiced. Dkts. 42 (declaration).

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CONSIDER
PRO SE PLEADINGS - 1

1

Respondent argues the Court should deny the motion because petitioner’s fear of

2

appointed counsel is irrelevant, petitioner has two capable lawyers, and petitioner has no right to

3

co-litigate the case while represented. Dkt. 44. The Court having considered the pleadings

4

submitted and the record ORDERS:

5

(1)

The motion to consider pro se reply filing, Dkt. 42, and declaration Dkt. 43 is

6

DENIED. Petitioner does not have the right to co-litigate a federal habeas petition pro se while

7

represented by counsel. This is barred under Local Rule 83.2(b)(5) which forbids a party

8

represented by counsel of record from acting or appearing on his own behalf unless the party

9

requests leave to proceed on his own behalf. Here petitioner does not ask leave to proceed on his

10

own behalf and instead asks for permission to proceed along-side counsel and litigate his petition

11

pro se. As the Court may apply the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to federal habeas petitions

12

under Habeas Rule 12, the Court concludes petitioner has no right to proceed pro se while

13

represented.

14

(2)

The Court has considered whether petitioner’s difficulty trusting counsel supports

15

granting the motion and concludes it is not. The Court understands many petitioners have trust

16

issues with counsel. But counsel speak with petitioner weekly and have traveled from Seattle to

17

Walla Walla to meet with petitioner. Counsel have filed a lengthy brief in support of relief. Two

18

lawyers represent petitioner and it appears they have diligently represented petitioner. Under

19

these circumstances, the Court declines to permit petitioner to co-litigate his case based upon

20

trust issues with counsel.

21

(3)

While the Court denies the motion to permit pro se filings, this does not mean the

22

Court will disregard claims counsel did not brief. Rather, the Court will consider each of the

23

grounds for relief raised in the habeas petition. The Court’s denial of the motion is therefore not

DKTS. 42, 43. - 2

1

dispositive because the Court will review each of the claims originally presented, rather than

2

foreclose review of claims not briefed by counsel.

3

(4)

4

DATED this 16th day of October, 2019.

The Clerk shall provide a copy of this order to the parties.

5

A

6

BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA
United States Magistrate Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

DKTS. 42, 43. - 3