Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-05602/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-05602-2/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

Case No. 09-CV-05602-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL AND STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE 

TRAVERSE; DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO EXTEND TIME

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

DINO LOREN SMITH,

Petitioner,

v.

GARY SWARTHOUT,

Respondent.

Case No. 09-CV-05602-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING WITHDRAWAL 

OF COUNSEL AND STIPULATION TO 

EXTEND TIME TO FILE TRAVERSE; 

DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO 

EXTEND TIME

Re: Dkt. No. 35, 36, 37

Counsel for Petitioner Dino Loren Smith (“Petitioner”) has moved ex parte to withdraw as 

counsel. ECF No. 36. Petitioner also moves to extend the time for Petitioner to file a traverse to 

the answer to Petitioner’s petition for habeas corpus, ECF No. 35, and the parties additionally filed 

a stipulation to extend the time for Petitioner to file a traverse, ECF No. 37. Having considered 

the parties’ submissions, the relevant law, and the record in this case, the Court hereby GRANTS 

the motion to withdraw and stipulation to extend to time, and DENIES as moot Petitioner’s

motion to extend time.

I. BACKGROUND

On November 25, 2009, Petitioner, represented by counsel, filed a petition for writ of 

Case 5:09-cv-05602-LHK Document 38 Filed 01/13/16 Page 1 of 6
2

Case No. 09-CV-05602-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL AND STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE 

TRAVERSE; DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO EXTEND TIME

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

Northern District of California

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his detention at the California State 

Prison, Solano, in Vacaville, California. ECF No. 1. On May 15, 2013, Petitioner filed an 

amended petition for writ of habeas corpus. ECF No. 15. On August 13, 2015, this Court ordered 

Respondent Gary Swarthout (“Respondent”) to show cause why the amended petition should not 

be granted. ECF No. 27. This Court gave Respondent sixty days, or until October 12, 2015, to 

file an Answer. Id. 

On October 12, 2015, Respondent filed an application for extension of time to file a 

response. ECF No. 29. Respondent provided no explanation for the delay in requesting a sixtyday extension of time. See id. On October 13, 2015, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-3 and Habeas 

Local Rule 2254-6, the Court granted Respondent the requested extended of time. ECF No. 30. 

Respondent filed an answer to the petition on December 11, 2015. ECF No. 31. The Court set a 

deadline of January 20, 2016 for Petitioner to file a traverse. Id.

On January 5, 2016, Petitioner moved for a ninety-day extension of time to file the 

traverse, based on a forthcoming motion to withdraw by Petitioner’s pro bono counsel Geri Lynn 

Green (“Green”). ECF No. 35. On January 6, 2016, Green filed an ex parte motion to withdraw. 

ECF No. 36. In the motion and supporting declaration, Green represents that her “serious health 

concerns” require Green to work only limited hours and render her “unable to continue 

representing Petitioner.” Id. Green also represents that there are no other attorneys within her law 

office to take over the representation. Id. Green mailed to Petitioner the Respondent’s 3000-page

answer and a letter explaining Green’s need to be relieved as counsel, as well as the financial 

declarations required for Petitioner to seek appointment of counsel. Id. Although Petitioner 

apparently received these documents, Green has not been able to speak to Petitioner about the 

motion to withdraw. Green represents that Respondent’s counsel has no objection to Green’s 

withdrawal or the requested extension of time. Id. 

On January 12, 2016, the parties filed a joint stipulation to extend the time for Petitioner to 

file a traverse, until April 13, 2016. ECF No. 37. Green further explained that her health issues 

Case 5:09-cv-05602-LHK Document 38 Filed 01/13/16 Page 2 of 6
3

Case No. 09-CV-05602-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL AND STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE 

TRAVERSE; DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO EXTEND TIME

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

Northern District of California

have compounded since filing the motion to withdraw, and her current health condition renders 

her “unable to work.” See id.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 11-5(b), counsel may not withdraw from an action until 

relieved by order of the Court after written notice has been given reasonably in advance to the 

client and to all other parties who have appeared in the case. Civ. L.R. 11-5(b). The decision to 

permit counsel to withdraw is within the sound discretion of the trial court. United States v. 

Carter, 560 F.3d 1107, 1113 (9th Cir. 2009). When addressing a motion to withdraw, the consent 

of the client is not dispositive. Robinson v. Delgado, No. CV 02-1538 NJV, 2010 WL 3259384, at 

*2 (N.D. Cal. Aug.18, 2010). Rather, the court must consider factors such as the reason counsel 

seeks to withdraw, the possible prejudice caused to the litigants, and the extent to which 

withdrawal may delay resolution of the case. Id.

Additionally, Civil Local Rule 11-4(a)(1) mandates compliance with the standards of 

professional conduct required of members of the State Bar of California. Civ. L.R. 11-4(a)(1). 

The California Rules of Professional Conduct requires counsel to withdraw in cases where the 

counsel’s “mental or physical condition renders it unreasonably difficult to carry out the 

employment effectively.” Cal. Rules of Prof’l Conduct 3-700(B)(3). Additionally, the Rules of 

Professional Conduct permit counsel to withdraw in cases where the counsel’s “mental or physical 

condition renders it difficult for the member to carry out the employment effectively.” Id. 3-

700(C)(4). In all cases, counsel must take “reasonable steps to avoid reasonably foreseeable 

prejudice to the rights of the client, including giving due notice to the client, allowing time for 

employment of other counsel, complying with Rule 3-700(D) [which addresses the disposition of 

client papers and property], and complying with applicable laws and rules.” Id. 3-700(A)(2).

III. DISCUSSION

As a preliminary matter, the Civil Local Rules require that, unless otherwise ordered by the 

Court, a party may file an ex parte motion only if authorized by statute, Federal Rule, local rule, or 

Case 5:09-cv-05602-LHK Document 38 Filed 01/13/16 Page 3 of 6
4

Case No. 09-CV-05602-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL AND STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE 

TRAVERSE; DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO EXTEND TIME

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

Northern District of California

Standing Order. Civ. L.R. 7-10. Green’s motion to withdraw does not cite any authority 

permitting the filing of an ex parte motion. See ECF No. 36. However, Green represents, under 

penalty of perjury, that Green served opposing counsel with the motion to withdraw and opposing 

counsel does not object to the motion. See id. Accordingly, the Court will treat Green’s motion to 

withdraw as a request to file the motion ex parte. Based on Green’s representations that opposing 

counsel does not oppose the motion to withdraw, and the upcoming deadline for Petitioner to file a 

traverse, the Court GRANTS Green’s motion to file the motion to withdraw ex parte.

With respect to the motion to withdraw, Green represents that her poor physical health 

renders Green unable to continue representing Petitioner. See ECF Nos. 36, 37. This qualifies as 

a permissible reason to withdraw. See Cal. Rules of Prof’l Conduct 3-700(B)(3), (C)(4). 

Additionally, Green has given notice to Petitioner, requested an extension of time to file the 

traverse, and provided Petitioner with Respondent’s answer and the financial paperwork necessary 

to request the appointment of new counsel. See ECF No. 36. The Court therefore concludes that 

Green has taken reasonable efforts to avoid prejudice to Petitioner, and GRANTS the motion to 

withdraw. To minimize the prejudice to Petitioner of Green’s withdrawal, the Court GRANTS the 

parties’ stipulation to extend the time to file a traverse to April 13, 2016. Consequently, the Court 

DENIES as moot Petitioner’s motion to extend time. See ECF No. 35.

As a result of this motion, Petitioner must find new counsel or file the traverse pro se. 

Petitioner may seek appointment of counsel from the Court, but the Court notes that the Sixth 

Amendment’s right to counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions. Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 

791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986). While 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes a district court 

to appoint counsel to represent a habeas petitioner if “the court determines that the interests of 

justice so require,” the courts have made appointment of counsel the exception rather than the rule. 

Appointment is mandatory only when the circumstances of a particular case indicate that 

appointed counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations. See Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 

1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986). Courts have limited appointment of counsel to: (1) capital cases; (2) 

Case 5:09-cv-05602-LHK Document 38 Filed 01/13/16 Page 4 of 6
5

Case No. 09-CV-05602-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL AND STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE 

TRAVERSE; DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO EXTEND TIME

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

Northern District of California

cases that turn on substantial and complex procedural, legal or mixed legal and factual questions; 

(3) cases involving uneducated or mentally or physically impaired petitioners; (4) cases likely to 

require the assistance of experts either in framing or in trying the claims; (5) cases in which 

petitioner is in no position to investigate crucial facts; and (6) factually complex cases. See 

generally 1 J. Liebman & R. Hertz, Federal Habeas Corpus Practice and Procedure § 12.3b at 383-

86 (2d ed. 1994). Petitioner should address this standard for appointment of counsel should 

Petitioner seek appointment of counsel.

Under Civil Local Rule 11-5(b), when withdrawal by an attorney is not accompanied by 

simultaneous appearance of substitute counsel, the court may grant withdrawal subject to the 

condition that papers continue to be served on counsel for forwarding purposes, unless and until 

the client appears by other counsel. See Civ. L.R. 11-5(b); Sun v. Rickenbacker Collection, No. 

10-CV-01055-LHK, 2011 WL 1344413, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2011) (requiring papers continue 

to be served on counsel for forwarding purposes for thirty days). Green represents that papers 

may continue to be served on the Law Office of Geri Lynn Green for forwarding purposes until 

Petitioner appears by other counsel or pro se. ECF No. 36. Accordingly, the Court grants 

withdrawal subject to the condition that papers continue to be served on the Law Office of Geri 

Lynn Green until new counsel appears or Petitioner indicates that Petitioner will proceed pro se. 

The Court also orders Green to serve this Order on Petitioner by certified mail and file proof of 

service with the Court by January 18, 2016. 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Green’s motion to withdraw subject to the 

condition that papers continue to be served on the Law Office of Geri Lynn Green for forwarding 

purposes until Petitioner appears by new counsel or pro se. The Court also GRANTS the parties’ 

stipulation to extend the time for Petitioner to file the traverse to April 13, 2016, and accordingly 

DENIES as moot Petitioner’s motion to extend time. Green shall forward this order to Petitioner 

and shall file proof of service with the Court by January 18, 2016.

Case 5:09-cv-05602-LHK Document 38 Filed 01/13/16 Page 5 of 6
6

Case No. 09-CV-05602-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL AND STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE 

TRAVERSE; DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO EXTEND TIME

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

Northern District of California

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2016

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:09-cv-05602-LHK Document 38 Filed 01/13/16 Page 6 of 6