From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cassano v. Bradshaw

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Mar 13, 2007
CASE NO. 1:03CV1206 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 13, 2007)

Opinion

CASE NO. 1:03CV1206.

March 13, 2007


ORDER


Pending before the Court are Petitioner, August Cassanso's, pro se Motion to Withdraw Attorney ( i.e., motion to remove counsel), (ECF # 84) and pro se Motion to Withdraw Appeals, (ECF # 85). After holding a status conference on the Motions on March 2, 2007, and by agreement of the parties, the Court will deny the Motion to Withdraw Attorney and Motion to Withdraw Appeals, as moot.

In his Motions, Petitioner Cassano requests that the Court remove his appointed counsel, Jeffrey Kelleher, because he asserts that the attorney-client relationship with Kelleher has irretrievably deteriorated. He further states in the Motion to Withdraw Appeals that he would rather forego any further habeas appeals than pursue them represented by current counsel. In response to the Motion to Withdraw Appeals, the Court ordered appointed counsel to file a motion requesting that Cassano undergo a competency evaluation to determine if he is competent to forego any further appeals. Additionally, the Court set a status conference for March 2, 2007.

Petitioner Cassano participated in the status conference via video conferencing. Also present at the conference were Cassano's counsel, Kelleher and Kirk Migdal, and Carol Ellensohn, representing the Respondent. Cassano explained to the Court during the conference that Kelleher had visited him in the time intervening his filing of the Motions and the status conference. He stated that he is now content with his current counsel and wishes to pursue his habeas litigation with their representation.

Because of the Court's colloquy with Cassano and the information he revealed therein, the Court finds that it is no longer necessary for counsel to file a motion requesting a competency evaluation. Accordingly, the Court WITHDRAWS its order requiring counsel to file such a motion, (ECF # 87). Additionally, because Cassano stated that he wishes to maintain the representation of current counsel and go forward with this habeas litigation, the Court DENIES the Motion to Withdraw Attorney, (ECF # 84), and Motion to Withdraw Appeals, (ECF # 85), as moot.

Finally, during the status conference the Respondent requested that Cassano's counsel keep her apprized of the status of his pending state court litigation. The Court finds the request to be a reasonable one and ORDERS Cassano's counsel to file with the Court a status report of his state court litigation by March 30, 2007, and quarterly thereafter. Counsel shall notify the Court within thirty (30) days of the conclusion of the state court proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Cassano v. Bradshaw

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Mar 13, 2007
CASE NO. 1:03CV1206 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 13, 2007)
Case details for

Cassano v. Bradshaw

Case Details

Full title:AUGUST CASSANO, Petitioner, v. MARGARET BRADSHAW, WARDEN, Respondent

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

Date published: Mar 13, 2007

Citations

CASE NO. 1:03CV1206 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 13, 2007)