Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06184/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06184-2/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

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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAMUEL D. HEARNES, JR., )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

)

v. )

)

)

)

DAVID L. RUNNELS, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:02-CV-6184 AWI LJO HC 

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S

MOTION TO DISCHARGE ATTORNEY

AND PROCEED IN PRO PER

[Doc. #42]

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

REQUEST FOR HEARING

[Doc. #40]

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME

[Doc. #41]

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

28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner up to this point has been represented by Frank G. Prantil, Esq.

On September 13, 2002, Petitioner filed a federal habeas petition in the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division. By order of the Court dated

September 26, 2002, the matter was transferred to the Fresno Division. After Magistrate Judge Hollis

G. Best granted Petitioner’s motion to file an amended petition, on April 14, 2003, Petitioner filed a

first amended petition. On December 30, 2003, Respondent filed an answer to the petition. On

February 2, 2004, Petitioner filed a traverse. 

On December 7, 2005, the undersigned issued a Findings and Recommendation that

recommended the petition be denied and judgment be entered for Respondent.

Case 1:02-cv-06184-AWI -SMS Document 43 Filed 02/13/06 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

27

28

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California 2

On February 6, 2006, Petitioner filed a motion to discharge counsel, a request for a hearing,

and a motion for an extension of time to file objections. Attorney Frank G. Prantil was not appointed

counsel for Petitioner by this Court; Petitioner retained Attorney Prantil on his own. Therefore,

Petitioner can choose to discharge his attorney and proceed in pro per, and Petitioner’s request to do

so will be granted.

Petitioner also requests an extension of time. To the extent Petitioner needs additional time to

prepare objections, his request will be granted. However, the Court will not hold the proceedings in

abeyance while Petitioner searches for a new attorney, and the Court will not extend time further

should Petitioner obtain a new attorney. This matter has been fully briefed since February 2, 2004.

Any issue Petitioner has with counsel’s representation could have and should have been brought at

that time. Petitioner’s delay up to this point - one year after briefing concluded, and after a Findings

and Recommendation issued - is unreasonable and inexcusable. 

Lastly, Petitioner requests a hearing on a pleading he names: “Petition for Judicial

Intervention.” No such pleading has been filed in this case. Therefore, Petitioner’s request will be

denied.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. Petitioner’s motion to discharge his attorney, Frank G. Prantil, Esq., is GRANTED:

2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to substitute Petitioner in as attorney of record 

proceeding in pro per; 

3. Petitioner is GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order to file

objections; and

4. Petitioner’s request for a hearing is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 12, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06184-AWI -SMS Document 43 Filed 02/13/06 Page 2 of 2