Opinion ID: 2978134
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Clark’s Motions for New Counsel

Text: Clark next argues that the district court erred in denying him new counsel after Clark and his attorney encountered a breakdown in communications. “An indigent defendant has no right to have a particular attorney represent him and therefore must demonstrate ‘good cause’ to warrant substitution of counsel.” United States v. Iles, 906 F.2d 1122, 1130 (6th Cir. 1990). We review the -9- district court’s decision of whether to replace counsel for abuse of discretion. United States v. Saldivar-Trujillo, 380 F.3d 274, 277 (6th Cir. 2004). When reviewing the district court’s denial of a motion for new counsel, we generally consider: (1) the timeliness of the motion, (2) the adequacy of the court’s inquiry into the matter, (3) the extent of the conflict between the attorney and client and whether it was so great that it resulted in a total lack of communication preventing an adequate defense, and (4) the balancing of these factors with the public’s interest in the prompt and efficient administration of justice. United States v. Mack, 258 F.3d 548, 556 (6th Cir. 2001). On June 16, 2004, Clark filed a motion for new counsel. On July 1, 2004, at a motion hearing on an unrelated issue, the district court noted that Clark had sent two letters to the court expressing dissatisfaction with his attorney regarding several motions Clark wanted to file. The court inquired of Clark and his attorney if the issues had been resolved, and both answered that they had been. Accordingly, the district court did not substitute counsel. On March 11, 2005, after receiving a second letter from Clark seeking a new attorney, the court held a hearing on the issue. At the hearing, Clark testified that his attorney failed to file motions for a bill of particulars and to dismiss. Clark’s attorney, Dan Ripper, explained that he had considered the issues but found no factual basis to file the motions. Clark also stated that he had no way to contact Ripper and that Ripper did not visit often enough. Ripper explained that he did not accept collect calls but supplied postage-paid envelopes, four at a time, for Clark to use as needed. Ripper also reminded Clark of his visits to the prison. After considering the testimony, the district court concluded that Clark failed to show a valid reason to replace Ripper and ordered his motion denied. We are satisfied that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Clark’s motion -10- to replace counsel. First, the district court responded adequately to Clark’s motions, allowing Clark to explain why he sought another attorney and giving Ripper the chance to respond. Next, after the first motion was filed, the parties conceded that they had resolved any miscommunication, which supports the court’s finding that there was not a “total lack of communication” preventing an adequate defense. Similarly, at the March 11, 2005 hearing, where Ripper explained that Clark disagreed with his decision not to file motions for a bill of particulars and to dismiss, despite having no factual basis for the motions, the district court properly concluded that the miscommunication was not propagated by a disagreement over Clark’s defense but by Clark’s misunderstanding of the law. Finally, because Clark’s disagreement with counsel stemmed from his desire to file additional motions, substituting counsel on that basis would have thwarted the prompt and efficient administration of justice where substitute counsel would have most likely agreed with present counsel that Clark’s motions would be fruitless.