From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hearnes v. Runnels

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 13, 2006
No. 1:02-CV-6184 AWI LJO HC, [Doc. #42], [Doc. #40], [Doc. #41] (E.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2006)

Opinion

No. 1:02-CV-6184 AWI LJO HC, [Doc. #42], [Doc. #40], [Doc. #41].

February 13, 2006


ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER'S MOTION TO DISCHARGE ATTORNEY AND PROCEED IN PRO PER ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR HEARING ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME


Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding in a habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner up to this point has been represented by Frank G. Prantil, Esq.

On September 13, 2002, Petitioner filed a federal habeas petition in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division. By order of the Court dated September 26, 2002, the matter was transferred to the Fresno Division. After Magistrate Judge Hollis G. Best granted Petitioner's motion to file an amended petition, on April 14, 2003, Petitioner filed a first amended petition. On December 30, 2003, Respondent filed an answer to the petition. On February 2, 2004, Petitioner filed a traverse.

On December 7, 2005, the undersigned issued a Findings and Recommendation that recommended the petition be denied and judgment be entered for Respondent.

On February 6, 2006, Petitioner filed a motion to discharge counsel, a request for a hearing, and a motion for an extension of time to file objections. Attorney Frank G. Prantil was not appointed counsel for Petitioner by this Court; Petitioner retained Attorney Prantil on his own. Therefore, Petitioner can choose to discharge his attorney and proceed in pro per, and Petitioner's request to do so will be granted.

Petitioner also requests an extension of time. To the extent Petitioner needs additional time to prepare objections, his request will be granted. However, the Court will not hold the proceedings in abeyance while Petitioner searches for a new attorney, and the Court will not extend time further should Petitioner obtain a new attorney. This matter has been fully briefed since February 2, 2004. Any issue Petitioner has with counsel's representation could have and should have been brought at that time. Petitioner's delay up to this point — one year after briefing concluded, and after a Findings and Recommendation issued — is unreasonable and inexcusable.

Lastly, Petitioner requests a hearing on a pleading he names: "Petition for Judicial Intervention." No such pleading has been filed in this case. Therefore, Petitioner's request will be denied.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Petitioner's motion to discharge his attorney, Frank G. Prantil, Esq., is GRANTED:
2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to substitute Petitioner in as attorney of record proceeding in pro per;
3. Petitioner is GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order to file objections; and

4. Petitioner's request for a hearing is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Hearnes v. Runnels

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 13, 2006
No. 1:02-CV-6184 AWI LJO HC, [Doc. #42], [Doc. #40], [Doc. #41] (E.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2006)
Case details for

Hearnes v. Runnels

Case Details

Full title:SAMUEL D. HEARNES, JR., Petitioner, v. DAVID L. RUNNELS, Warden, Respondent

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

Date published: Feb 13, 2006

Citations

No. 1:02-CV-6184 AWI LJO HC, [Doc. #42], [Doc. #40], [Doc. #41] (E.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2006)