UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 

Oliver Hooper 

v. Civil No. 08-cv-426-JD 

Warden, Northern 

New Hampshire Correctional Facility 

O R D E R 

Petitioner, Oliver Hooper, seeks relief from his state court 

convictions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On July 31, 2009, 

while the Warden’s motion for summary judgment was pending, 

Petitioner’s retained counsel notified the court, by letter, that 

he had been suspended from practice, and the court deemed the 

letter to be an involuntary withdrawal from the case. Petitioner 

moved for appointment of counsel and submitted financial forms to 

demonstrate his need for appointed counsel. His request for 

appointed counsel was granted, and Attorney Jorel V. Booker was 

appointed to represent Petitioner in this case on October 30, 

2009. 

An extension of time was granted, until January 18, 2010, to 

respond to the Warden’s motion for summary judgment. On December 

1 7 , 2009, Petitioner filed a motion, pro se, for appointment of 

new counsel, contending that Attorney Booker was not 

communicating with him. Attorney Booker filed a response, 

Case 1:08-cv-00426-JD Document 33 Filed 01/26/10 Page 1 of 4
explaining that he had visited Petitioner on December 18, 2009, 

and, on the basis of that representation, the court denied the 

motion. Attorney Booker filed a response, on Petitioner’s 

behalf, to the Warden’s motion for summary judgment on January 

1 8, 2010. 

On January 20, 2010, Petitioner filed a motion, pro se, to 

terminate Attorney Booker as his counsel. Petitioner represents 

that he has not been able to communicate with Attorney Booker, 

that he was not allowed to review the response to the Warden’s 

motion for summary judgment before it was filed, and that he 

believes Attorney Booker is not looking out for his best 

interests. Petitioner asks to be permitted to proceed pro se if 

new counsel is not appointed and asks for a six-month extension 

of time to develop a new petition for habeas relief. 

In response to Petitioner’s motion to terminate him as 

appointed counsel, Attorney Booker takes issue with Petitioner’s 

version of their relationship but does state: “It is clear that 

there is a breakdown in communication between Mr. Hooper and 

Counsel that cannot be repaired . . . .” 

Therefore, because both Petitioner and Attorney Booker agree 

that the breakdown in communication between them is irremediable, 

the appointment of Attorney Booker in this case is terminated. 

2 

Case 1:08-cv-00426-JD Document 33 Filed 01/26/10 Page 2 of 4
Petitioner’s involvement in his case and his use of the 

prison law library to instruct his counsel for purposes of 

opposing summary judgment demonstrate that he is able to 

represent himself. Therefore, his request to proceed pro se is 

granted. 

Conclusion 

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s motion to terminate 

appointed counsel (document no. 31) is granted to the extent 

that: 

1. Representation by Attorney Jorel V. Booker is 

terminated; 

2 . Petitioner shall proceed pro se; 

3. On or before February 9, 2010, Petitioner shall notify 

the court whether he intends to: 

a. Rely on the response to the Warden’s motion for 

summary judgment that was filed by Attorney Booker; 

b . Use the response filed by Attorney Booker but also 

file a supplemental response to the motion for summary judgment; 

c. File a new and substitute response to the motion 

for summary judgment, OR 

d. File for leave to file an amended petition for 

habeas relief. 

3 

Case 1:08-cv-00426-JD Document 33 Filed 01/26/10 Page 3 of 4
4. On or before March 9, 2010, Petitioner shall file, in 

accordance with his notice to the court, a substitute or 

supplemental response to the motion for summary judgment or a 

motion for leave to file an amended petition for relief under 28 

U.S.C. § 2254, with a copy of the proposed amended petition 

attached. 

5. If Petitioner fails to file a response, as outlined 

here, or a motion for leave to amend on or before March 9, 2010, 

the court will address the Warden’s motion for summary judgment 

with the response that has already been filed by appointed 

counsel. 

SO ORDERED. 

/s/ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. 

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. 

United States District Judge 

January 26, 2010 

cc: Jorel Booker, Esq. 

Oliver Hooper 

Elizabeth Woodcock, Esq. 

4 

Case 1:08-cv-00426-JD Document 33 Filed 01/26/10 Page 4 of 4