Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01674/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01674-1/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

The court notes that the motion for substitution and proposed order were not served on 1

respondents as the declaration of service page, while attached, is not properly filled in or signed. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Banquo D. Young

Petitioner No. CIV S-03-1674 MCE CMK P 

vs.

Joe McGrath, Warden, et al.,

Respondents.

 / ORDER

Petitioner, a state prisoner represented by an attorney, has filed a petition for a

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On June 24, 2005, the court received, in

paper format, a motion for substitution of counsel along with a proposed order. This order was

lodged with the court. 

The Eastern District of California is an electronic case management and filing

district (CM/ECF). Local Rule 5-133(a). Unless excused by the court...attorneys shall file all

documents electronically pursuant to those Rules. Id. Under the electronic filing rules, “when a

proposed order is electronically submitted to the Court, the person proposing it must submit it

via ECF, thereby effecting service on all other parties. ” Local Rule 5-137(a). In addition to 1

Case 2:03-cv-01674-MCE -CMK Document 28 Filed 08/04/05 Page 1 of 3
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

2

electronically filing the proposed order in .pdf format, the proposing person must also submit by

 e-mail a separate proposed order in a word processing format compatible with Word Perfect to

the appropriate Magistrate Judge’s e-mail box listed on the court website. Local Rule 5-137(b). 

The court understands that this is a proposed order to substitute petitioner as his

own attorney, which as a pro se litigant, would exempt petitioner from the requirements of

electronic filing. Local Rule 5-133(b)(2). However, as all substitutions of attorney require

approval of the court, petitioner continues to be represented by an attorney until his motion for

substitution of counsel is approved by the court. Local Rule 83-182(g). Therefore, the Local

Rules require that the instant motion for substitution of attorney be filed electronically. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 

1. The “Motion for Substitution of Counsel, Proposed Order,” which was lodged

on June 24, 2005, shall be placed in the file and disregarded and;

2. Petitioner’s counsel shall file a motion for substitution of counsel according to

Local Rules 5-133 and 5-137, which governing filing of electronic documents and proposed

orders. 

DATED: August 3, 2005.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:03-cv-01674-MCE -CMK Document 28 Filed 08/04/05 Page 2 of 3
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

Case 2:03-cv-01674-MCE -CMK Document 28 Filed 08/04/05 Page 3 of 3