Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01135/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01135-0/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES HERREN,

Petitioner,

vs.

D. A. BRAZELTON, et. al.,

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.:1:12-cv-01135-AWI-SAB (HC)

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE COUNSEL’S APPLICATION 

TO WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY OF 

RECORD 

(ECF No. 23)

Petitioner is proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

2254. Petitioner is currently represented by John M. Kaman.

On January 10, 2013, counsel Kaman filed an application to withdraw as attorney of 

record indicating that he has been terminated by Petitioner.

Withdrawal of counsel is governed by Local Rule 182(d) which provides:

Withdrawal. Unless otherwise provided herein, an attorney who has appeared may not 

withdraw leaving the client in propria persona without leave of court upon noticed 

motion and notice to the client and all other parties who have appeared. The attorney 

shall provide an affidavit stating the current or last known address or addresses of the 

client and the efforts made to notify the client of the motion to the State Bar of California, 

and the attorney of record shall continue until relieved by order of the Court issued 

hereunder. Leave to withdraw may be granted subject to such appropriate conditions as 

the Court deems fit. 

Case 1:12-cv-01135-AWI-SAB Document 24 Filed 01/14/13 Page 1 of 2
2

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

Counsel has failed to comply with Local Rule 182(d) by submitting proof of notice of 

the application to withdraw on Petitioner and setting forth the efforts he has made to notify 

Petitioner of the application to withdraw.1 Nor has counsel provided the Court with Petitioner’s 

current address. The Court cannot consider the application to withdraw until counsel has 

complied with the requirements set forth in Local Rule 182(d). 

Accordingly, the application to withdraw as counsel of record is DENIED without 

prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 11, 2013 /s/ Stanley A. Boone 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

i1eed4

 

1 Although Petitioner filed a pro se motion for an extension of time to file a traverse and requested that counsel be 

terminated as attorney of record (ECF No. 18), this does not relieve counsel of the obligation to comply with Local 

Rule 182(d). 

Case 1:12-cv-01135-AWI-SAB Document 24 Filed 01/14/13 Page 2 of 2