Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01276/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01276-9/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARREL M. SMITH,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-1276 DFL EFB P

vs.

KATHY MENDOZA-POWER, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus. See 28

U.S.C. § 2254. He challenges his conviction and a decision by the Board of Prison Terms

finding him unsuitable for parole. On May 12, 2006, the court appointed counsel to represent

petitioner. On September 29, 2006, respondent filed a motion to dismiss petitioner’s challenge

to the guilty plea on the ground that it was second or successive. On October 4, 2006, counsel

filed a statement of non-opposition. On October 16, 2006, petitioner filed a motion to relieve his

appointed counsel of further representation and to withdraw the statement of non-opposition. 

This filing also asked the court to appoint one Mike Yellen to provide legal assistance to 

petitioner. On November 15, 2006, the court recommended that respondents’ motion to dismiss

be granted and that respondents be directed to answer the claims relating to the finding that

petitioner is unsuitable for parole.

Case 2:05-cv-01276-JKS Document 43 Filed 01/03/07 Page 1 of 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

2

The October 16, 2006, order did not address petitioner’s request to appoint Mike Yellen

as a legal assistant and to withdraw the statement of non-opposition to the motion to dismiss. 

These requests are resolved herein and for the reasons explained below, both requests are denied.

A party appearing pro se may not delegate his appearance to any other person. L.R. 83-

183(a). Only an attorney admitted to practice in this court who has appeared on petitioner’s

behalf may represent petitioner and accept service of papers for him. L.R. 5-137(b), 83-180(a),

83-182(a). Plaintiff makes no showing that Mike Yellen satisfies these requirements.

A motion, and any opposition or statement of non-opposition, ordinarily may not be

withdrawn once the motion is submitted for decision, absent consent of the parties or an order of

the court. See 60 Corpus Juris Secundum § 41. Respondents’ motion to dismiss was submitted

for decision on October 27, 2006, 28 days after it was filed. See L. R. 78-230(m). More

importantly, in their motion, respondents demonstrated that the court lacks jurisdiction to

entertain petitioner’s challenge to his conviction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). Counsel’s statement

of non-opposition simply recognizes, as it must, that under existing law the motion must be

granted. Any brief in opposition to the motion, if not well grounded in fact and controlling law

(or a good faith extension of existing law), subjects the person(s) filing the brief to monetary

sanctions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). Counsel’s filing of the statement complied with her ethical

responsibilities and Rule 11. Petitioner’s dissatisfaction with the facts and controlling law is not

grounds for withdrawing the statement of non-opposition. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that petitioner’s October 16, 2006, motion to have Mike

Yellen appointed to assist him and to withdraw the statement of non-opposition is denied.

Dated: December 29, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-01276-JKS Document 43 Filed 01/03/07 Page 2 of 2