Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_98-cv-02150/USCOURTS-caed-2_98-cv-02150-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LUIS MENDOZA, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

JEFFREY BEARD, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:98-cv-2150 MCE GGH 

ORDER 

 

 For over fourteen (14) years, counsel for petitioner, Denise Kendall, essentially 

abandoned her client after petitioning this court to stay the case pending exhaustion of new 

claims. No action was taken by petitioner’s counsel during this 14 year period; the matter came 

to the court’s attention when respondent filed a motion to lift the stay and dismiss this action. 

Ms. Kendall essentially alleges that she forgot about the case, and takes responsibility for this 

misfeasance. There is no record of contact between Ms. Kendall and petitioner during this 

lengthy period. The undersigned recommended that the motion to dismiss be granted, and this 

recommendation is now pending a district judge’s review. 

 The undersigned issued an order, ECF No. 47, to show cause why Ms. Kendall should not 

be disbarred from practicing in the District Court, Eastern District of California. Ms. Kendall 

Case 2:98-cv-02150-MCE-GGH Document 58 Filed 06/02/15 Page 1 of 4
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2

obtained counsel, and filed her more explanatory declaration in opposition to this proposed 

action. The undersigned ordered this declaration to be filed under seal. However, aside from 

being more explanatory as to why she forgot about this action, i.e. there are reasons, but no 

excuses, the fact remained that she abandoned her client. Ms. Kendall has asked for this court’s 

consideration of her lengthy, good record as an attorney in fashioning the appropriate sanction. 

She has not objected to the undersigned’s taking action on the order to show cause as may be 

appropriate. 

 Resolution of this order to show cause is not made in a vacuum. As the undersigned 

pointed out in the related case involving attorney Gail Weinheimer (Pedro Mendoza v. Beard, 

2:98-cv-1857 MCE GGH)), astonishingly, the same abandonment by counsel took place with 

respect to petitioner’s brother, Pedro Mendoza. The undersigned issued a similar order to show 

cause to Ms. Weinheimer as to why she should not be disbarred from practice in the Eastern 

District of California District Court. Ms. Weinheimer, through counsel, objected to the 

undersigned making a disbarment order, or taking other action without submission of the matter 

to a lawyer’s disciplinary committee set up in the Eastern District (which does not exist), or 

submission to a disciplinary investigation/adjudication by the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) Panel of 

this district. This Panel is responsible for appointment and payment of counsel appointed in, inter 

alia, habeas corpus cases. After review and consideration of the matter, the court ordered the 

Federal Defender to submit the matter of discipline involving Ms. Weinheimer to the CJA Panel 

of this district. In doing so, the undersigned understood that Ms. Weinheimer remained a member 

of the panel for purposes of taking habeas corpus cases in this district, and that she had been 

appointed as counsel under the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) in cases that remain pending at 

present. There might be a remedy to be employed by the CJA Panel which would fit the 

misfeasance in that case.1 The undersigned also determined that the petitioner in that case was 

 

1

 The undersigned also views this matter against the backdrop of an unrelated case in which 

counsel for a habeas corpus petitioner abandoned his client after the federal case was stayed and 

during a lengthy period in which exhaustion of new claims was supposed to be taking place. See 

Luna v. Kernan, 784 F.3d 640 (9th Cir. 2015). The attorney involved in that misfeasance, Joseph 

Wiseman was an active member of the CJA Panel and had been appointed to both habeas corpus 

cases as a petitioner’s counsel and as defense counsel in federal criminal prosecutions. Mr. 

Case 2:98-cv-02150-MCE-GGH Document 58 Filed 06/02/15 Page 2 of 4
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

3

free to petition the California State Bar for an appropriate remedy. 

 This brings the discussion about what to do in this case. Although Ms. Kendall was 

appointed under the CJA for this case, the undersigned understands that Ms. Kendall is no longer 

a member of the CJA panel for any case. It might seem that an appropriate remedy is not 

possible. On the other hand, the undersigned believes that the CJA Panel retains an interest in 

reviewing this matter in that the initial appointment was made under the CJA. It might, for 

example, preclude Ms. Kendall from ever seeking appointment in the future given the 

misfeasance in this case. It might also determine that the integrity of the CJA program requires 

further consideration by referral to the State Bar. It further might demand reimbursement of any 

CJA sums distributed to Ms. Kendall for her “work” in the case. 

 The undersigned himself could fashion the appropriate discipline, or refer the matter to the 

State Bar. But, for the reasons expressed in the Weinheimer matter, the undersigned believes that 

matter of investigation and adjudication should, initially at least, be performed by a body whose 

duties include investigation of attorney misfeasance. Moreover, it does not appear appropriate at 

this point to treat Ms. Kendall in a manner potentially more punitive way than that applicable to 

Ms. Weinheimer, and Mr. Wiseman, for that matter. The undersigned will therefore refer the 

Kendall disciplinary matter to the CJA Panel which sought her appointment by the court in the 

above captioned case. 

 However, as also held in the Weinheimer matter, nothing in this order precludes the 

petitioner in this case from petitioning the California State Bar for initiation and consideration of 

its own remedial process. Petitioner is, after all, the person most aggrieved by Ms. Kendall’s 

actions. Petitioner’s present counsel will therefore be ordered to serve a copy of this order on 

petitioner. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. The Clerk is directed to copy and send ECF Nos. 7, 28, 30, 35, 36, 38, 46, 47, 53, 57 

in the above captioned case as well as this order to the Federal Defender, Eastern 

 

Wiseman recently, voluntarily resigned from the CJA Panel, which had given him substantial 

work over the years. 

Case 2:98-cv-02150-MCE-GGH Document 58 Filed 06/02/15 Page 3 of 4
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

4

District of California for CJA Panel investigation/adjudication of the Kendall 

misconduct matter. 

2. Ms. Kendall is ordered to serve upon the Federal Defender, within seven days, the 

declaration which this court has ordered sealed. She shall inform the Federal 

Defender of this order when serving the declaration. 

3. The Federal Defender, or appropriate designee, shall inform the undersigned and the 

Chief Judge of this District within 45 days of the outcome of the CJA Panel 

investigation in the Kendall matter. Any requests for an extension of time shall be 

directed to the undersigned. 

4. Nothing in this order precludes petitioner from seeking such further relief as petitioner 

may deem appropriate including reference to the State Bar of California. Petitioner’s 

counsel shall serve a copy of this order on petitioner himself. 

5. This order resolves the order to show cause, ECF No. 47. 

6. The Clerk shall serve this order on all counsel who have appeared at any time in this 

matter and, as noted above, the Federal Defender. The Clerk shall also serve the Chief 

Judge of this District, the Honorable Morrison C. England. 

Dated: June 1, 2015 

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:98-cv-02150-MCE-GGH Document 58 Filed 06/02/15 Page 4 of 4