Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-00991/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-00991-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gerald Howard
Petitioner
M. Martel
Respondent

Document Text:

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

GERALD HOWARD,

Petitioner,

v.

M. MARTEL,

Respondent.

No. 2:11-cv-0991 JAM CKD P

ORDER

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis with a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner was appointed counsel on August 26, 

2011, and his current counsel, Ms. Hart, was substituted in as his counsel shortly thereafter. (ECF 

Nos. 20, 25.) Since that time, petitioner through counsel has filed an amended petition (ECF No. 

49-1), moved to stay this action to exhaust state remedies as to a new claim (ECF No. 54), and 

filed a reply to respondent’s opposition to the petition (ECF No. 60-1). Insofar as appointed 

counsel’s performance is reflected in the record of this action, the court finds no cause for 

complaint. Petitioner nonetheless has filed a motion to appoint substitute counsel, alleging 

“severe incompatibility” with his current counsel. (ECF No. 62.) 

/////

Case 2:11-cv-00991-JAM-CKD Document 64 Filed 12/30/13 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

There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. 

See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A 

authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case “if the interests of justice so 

require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. Under §3006A, motions by habeas 

petitioners to substitute counsel should be decided under the “interests of justice” standard. 

Martel v. Clair, 132 S. Ct. 1276, 1284-1286 (2012) (“Section 3006A applies the ‘interests of 

justice standard to substitution motions even when the Sixth Amendment does not require 

representation; . . . for example, when a court provides counsel to a non-capital habeas 

petitioner.”). 

Under the particular circumstances of Martel, the United States Supreme Court held that 

“the [district] court’s failure to make any inquiry into [the petitioner’s] allegations” before 

denying his motion to substitute counsel did not constitute an abuse of discretion. Id. at 1287-

1288. Generally speaking, however, the Court observed that 

[a]s all Circuits agree, courts cannot properly resolve substitution 

motions without probing why a defendant wants a new lawyer. See, 

e.g., United States v. Iles, 906 F.2d 1122, 1130 (C.A.6 1990) (“It is 

hornbook law that ‘[w]hen an indigent defendant makes a timely 

and good faith motion requesting that appointed counsel be 

discharged and new counsel appointed, the trial court clearly has a 

responsibility to determine the reasons for defendant's 

dissatisfaction ...’ ” (quoting 2 W. LaFave & J. Israel, Criminal 

Procedure § 11.4, p. 36 (1984))). Moreover, an on-the-record 

inquiry into the defendant's allegations “permit[s] meaningful 

appellate review” of a trial court's exercise of discretion. United 

States v. Taylor, 487 U.S. 326, 336–337, 108 S. Ct. 2413, 101 

L.Ed.2d 297 (1988).

Id. at 1288. Here, as noted above, the record indicates that appointed counsel is ably representing 

petitioner. Moreover, the petition is fully briefed. It may be that, under Martel, these “factors 

would . . . provide ample basis to reject” petitioner’s motion without further inquiry. Id. In an 

abundance of caution, however, the court will direct appointed counsel to file a response to 

petitioner’s allegations so that the court may resolve petitioner’s motion based on a complete 

record. 

////

////

Case 2:11-cv-00991-JAM-CKD Document 64 Filed 12/30/13 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT within thirty days of the date of this 

order, petitioner’s appointed counsel will file a response to petitioner’s motion to appoint new 

counsel.

Dated: December 30, 2013

2 / howa0991.ord

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:11-cv-00991-JAM-CKD Document 64 Filed 12/30/13 Page 3 of 3