Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_98-cv-01857/USCOURTS-caed-2_98-cv-01857-6/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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

PEDRO MENDOZA, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

JEFFREY BEARD, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:98-cv-1857 MCE GGH 

ORDER 

 

 Attorney Gail Weinheimer, objects to the undersigned unilaterally presiding pursuant to 

E.D. Cal Local Rule 184 at any sanction process on behalf of the District Court, Eastern District 

of California. A primary objection stems from her view of a (now superseded) General Order 45 

which appears, by its adoption of E.D. Cal. Rule 9 (at the time) to contemplate the matter of 

discipline being initially determined by a standing disciplinary committee district. 

 Although the undersigned does not share the view of Ms. Weimheimer or her counsel 

concerning the viability of the above General Order,1

 

1

 Governance of a district court can sometimes be a murky matter. It appears that General Order 

45 adopted Local Rule 9, were both promulgated in the early days of this district. Sometime 

between 1983 and 1986, Rule 9 was split into Local Rules 180, 181 and 184. Local Rule 184 was 

amended by General Order 201 in 1986, and any reference to a “standing committee” was 

removed. 

Case 2:98-cv-01857-MCE-GGH Document 49 Filed 05/29/15 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 

2

their indication that-- 

 ...potential attorney misconduct which might result in serious implications to an 

 attorney’s career should be reviewed by an organization generally tasked with overseeing 

 attorney activities... 

has merit. 

 Therefore, the undersigned will forego any further personal investigation or action 

concerning Ms. Weinheimer’s potential misconduct; the decision now is to simply refer the 

matter to the State Bar of California and/or the CJA Panel (see General Order 323) for whatever 

investigation/proceeding they deems appropriate. Ms. Weinheimer has requested that the matter 

be referred to the CJA Panel administered by the Federal Defender Office of this District. 

 The undersigned has given considerable thought to this matter. The matter at hand 

involving the conduct of Ms. Weinheimer in the above captioned case is troubling not only 

because of her 14 year delay in seeking exhaustion of an issue in the state courts after petitioning 

this court for a stay of the above captioned habeas case, but also because of her apparent 

misrepresentations to her client concerning the “progress” in the case. 

 Because Ms. Weinheimer is presently a member of the CJA Panel for habeas cases, and 

because that Panel has been entrusted by our District with disciplinary 

investigations/adjudications of attorney misconduct matters, the undersigned believes that the 

Panel is the forum, initially at least, to which this potential disciplinary matter should be 

referenced. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The Clerk is directed to copy and send ECF Nos. 27, 29, 32, 34, 35, 40, 45, 46, 47, 48 

in the above captioned case as well as this order to the Federal Defender, Eastern 

District of California for CJA Panel investigation/adjudication of the Weinheimer 

misconduct matter. 

2. The Federal Defender, or appropriate designee, shall inform the undersigned and the 

Chief Judge of this District, within 45 days, of the outcome of the CJA Panel 

investigation in the Weinheimer matter. Any requests for an extension of time shall be 

directed to the undersigned. 

Case 2:98-cv-01857-MCE-GGH Document 49 Filed 05/29/15 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 

3

3. Nothing in this order precludes petitioner from seeking such further relief as petitioner 

may deem appropriate, including reference to the State Bar of California. Petitioner’s 

counsel shall serve a copy of his order on petitioner himself. 

4. This order resolves the order to show cause, ECF No. 47. 

5. The Clerk shall serve this order on all counsel who have appeared at any time in this 

matter and, as noted above, the Federal Defender. The Clerk shall also serve the Chief 

Judge of this District, the Honorable Morrison C. England. 

6. The Clerk shall change respondent in this case from Terhune to Jeffrey Beard. 

Dated: May 28, 2015 

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:98-cv-01857-MCE-GGH Document 49 Filed 05/29/15 Page 3 of 3