Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05472/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05472-4/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD OLIVER, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

ANTHONY LAMARQUE, )

)

Respondent. )

 ) 

1:02-cv-05472-OWW-TAG HC 

 

INFORMATIONAL ORDER REGARDING

SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO SERVE

BOTH PETITION AND COUNSEL OF

RECORD UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a habeas corpus action pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On August 29, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation

recommending that the petition be denied. (Doc. 17). On September 19, 2005, Petitioner filed a

motion to extend time to file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation of

August 29, 2005. (Doc. 19). That motion was granted on October 14, 2005. (Doc. 23). On

November 3, 2005, Petitioner filed a second motion for extension of time to file his objections. 

(Doc. 25). That motion was granted on November 28, 2005. (Doc. 27). 

The original petition for writ of habeas corpus was filed on April 26, 2002, on behalf of

petitioner by his attorney, Gary M. Diamond. (Doc. 1). Similarly, the traverse was also filed by

counsel of record, Attorney Diamond, on December 13, 2002. (Doc. 13). No motion for withdrawal

or substitution of counsel has been properly filed with the Court. 

Case 1:02-cv-05472-OWW -TAG Document 29 Filed 12/15/05 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

27

28

INFORMATIONAL DISCUSSION

Pursuant to Local Rules, the Clerk of the Court is directed to serve copies of the Court's

written orders on all counsel who have appeared in the action. See L.R.5-137(f). Moreover,

pursuant to Local Rule 5-135(c), such service is complete “when served upon the attorney for the

party, if the party has appeared and is represented by an attorney.” Finally, absent notice of a change

of address for the attorney of record, “service of documents at the prior address of the attorney...shall

be fully effective.” See L.R. 83-182(f). Thus, since Attorney Diamond is Petitioner’s attorney of

record, the Clerk of the Court has always served, and will continue to serve, Attorney Diamond with

all orders of the Court; moreover, service by the Clerk of the Court is “complete” when service upon

Attorney Diamond is effected. Therefore, technically, the Clerk of the Court is technically correct in

serving only Mr. Diamond.

It appears, however, that on August 9, 2004, in an effort to replace Attorney Diamond with

Petitioner as counsel of record, Petitioner filed a “Notice of Dismissed Counsel In The Above Case

Number.” (Doc. 16). In that notice, Petitioner indicates that Attorney Diamond “has discontinued

his representation of my petition. All legal correspondence should now be forwarded to me as the

Pro-Se petition.” (Id.). However, that document is ineffective to change the attorney of record from

Attorney Diamond to Petitioner because it was not properly filed with a proof of service on all

parties. Fed. Rule of Civ. Proc. Rule 5(a), (b), and (d) require inter alia that all orders, pleadings,

papers, appearances, and written notices filed with the Court shall be served on all parties and that a

copy of that proof of service shall be filed with the Court.

If Petitioner wishes to effect a change in the counsel of record in this case, and thus change

service by the Clerk of the Court from Attorney Diamond to Petitioner, he may file with the Court

either a Substitution of Counsel or a properly noticed and filed Motion to Substitute Petitioner in

propria persona for Attorney Diamond. A Substitution of Attorneys, pursuant to Local Rule 83-

182(g), must contain the signed consent of both Attorney Diamond and Petitioner. From the Court’s

inability to serve documents on Attorney Diamond at his last known address, and from Petitioner’s

Notice of August 8, 2004, it would appear unlikely that Petitioner could obtain Attorney Diamond’s

written consent for such a Substitution of Counsel.

Case 1:02-cv-05472-OWW -TAG Document 29 Filed 12/15/05 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

27

28

On the other hand, a properly noticed Motion to Substitute Petitioner In Propria Persona As

Counsel of Record, need only be signed by Petitioner, contain adequate grounds for granting the

motion, e.g., the attorney is no longer representing Petitioner and/or has moved and cannot be

contacted or located, and contain a proof of service on both the attorney of record, e.g., Attorney 

Diamond, at his last known address, and on all counsel for Respondent.

Absent such a noticed motion, the Clerk of the Court is technically correct to continue

serving only Attorney Diamond with orders of the Court. However, in order to mitigate this

problem, the Court will DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to henceforth serve both Petitioner and

Attorney Diamond, until such time as Petitioner submits either a substitution of counsel or a motion

to substitute counsel.

ORDER

Accordingly, GOOD CAUSE appearing therefor, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to

serve both Petitioner and counsel of record for Petitioner until further notice from the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 14, 2005 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05472-OWW -TAG Document 29 Filed 12/15/05 Page 3 of 3