From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Maury v. Warden

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Oct 30, 2015
2:12-cv-1043 WBS DAD (E.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2015)

Opinion


ROBERT EDWARD MAURY, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, San Quentin State Prison, Respondent. No. 2:12-cv-1043 WBS DAD United States District Court, E.D. California. October 30, 2015

          ORDER

          DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge.

         On October 24, 2012, petitioner filed his federal habeas petition herein. On December 23, 2013, respondent filed an answer. The original due date for petitioner's reply was July 28, 2014. Petitioner has requested, and received, five extensions of time since then. (ECF Nos. 50, 53, 55, 57, 59.) The most recent due date, which has passed, was October 26, 2015, almost two years after the answer was filed in this action. On October 26, 2015, petitioner's counsel, Michael Laurence, filed an unopposed motion for a sixth extension of time to complete this task. (ECF No. 68.)

         On October 7, 2015, less than three weeks before the reply brief was due, the Habeas Corpus Resource Center ("HCRC") and attorney Kevin Bringuel moved to withdraw as counsel of record for petitioner. (ECF No. 60.) Respondent opposes the motion. (ECF No. 64.) The HCRC filed a reply. (ECF No. 67.) Both the HCRC and attorney Bringuel seek to file declarations in support of their motion under seal. (ECF Nos. 65 and 66.) The undersigned finds good cause for both declarations to be filed under seal.

         The pending motion to withdraw raises the question of who this court appointed to represent petitioner, HCRC or attorneys Bringuel and Laurence as individuals. To clarify, and as stated in the court's order appointing counsel (ECF No. 3), the court appointed attorneys Bringuel and Laurence to represent petitioner. Accordingly, and to the extent there is any confusion about HCRC's status as counsel for petitioner, HCRC's motion to withdraw will be granted.

On October 13, 2015, the undersigned held an ex parte conference with Mr. Bringuel, Mr. Laurence, acting director of HCRC Jeannie Sternberg, and Jennifer Mann, head of the Federal Defender's Capital Habeas Unit and a representative of the Eastern District's Selection Board for capital habeas cases to discuss the status of petitioner's representation.

         With respect to attorney Bringuel's request to withdraw, his declaration demonstrates good cause for his withdrawal from representation of petitioner in this proceeding. See Local Rule 182(d) ("Withdrawal as attorney is governed by the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California, and the attorney shall conform to the requirements of those Rules."); Rules of the State Bar of Calif., Calif. Rule of Prof. Conduct 3-700(C)(6) (counsel may seek withdrawal for "good cause").

         Attorney Laurence, however, has not sought to withdraw from his representation of petitioner and, in any event, has provided no basis for a finding of good cause, at this point, to permit him to withdraw. After the long-due reply brief is filed on behalf of petitioner, the court will consider any motion to withdraw attorney Laurence may wish make. Before then, any motion to withdraw at this late date will not be granted absent extraordinary and unforeseeable circumstances supporting such a motion.

         For the foregoing reasons, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. The requests to seal documents of attorney Bringuel and HCRC (ECF Nos. 65 & 66) are granted. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file under seal the October 23, 2015 Declaration of Kevin Bringuel and the October 23, 2015 Declaration of Jeannie R. Sternberg.

2. The motion to withdraw brought by HCRC and attorney Bringuel (ECF No. 60) is granted.

3. Petitioner's unopposed motion for an extension of time to file the reply brief (ECF No. 68) is granted. The reply brief shall be filed by January 25, 2016. Respondent shall file any sur-reply within 60 days after the filing of the reply brief.

4. This case is referred to the Selection Board of the Eastern District for recommendation of counsel to replace attorney Bringuel. The court urges the board to recommend a replacement for attorney Bringuel as quickly as possible. However, the court will not consider the appointment of new counsel as grounds for any further extensions of time to file petitioner's reply brief.

5. Mr. Laurence is reminded that vouchers for reimbursement of his time for work on this case must be submitted in a timely manner. (See May 10, 2012 Order, ECF No. 8.)

6. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve this order upon Assistant Federal Defender Jennifer Mann and upon Kurt Heiser, CJA Administrator, Office of the Federal Defender.


Summaries of

Maury v. Warden

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Oct 30, 2015
2:12-cv-1043 WBS DAD (E.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2015)
Case details for

Maury v. Warden

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT EDWARD MAURY, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, San Quentin State Prison…

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Oct 30, 2015

Citations

2:12-cv-1043 WBS DAD (E.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2015)