Van Winkle v. Shinn

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided March 12, 2021·No. 2:18-cv-03290·Unknown

Opinion

WO

Pete Van Winkle, No. CV-18-03290-PHX-ROS

Petitioner, ORDER

v.

Charles L Ryan, et al.,

Respondents. Petitioner’s counsel, Sarah Stone, seeks to withdraw as counsel because she “has accepted employment with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Louisiana.” (Doc. 55). In recent months, Petitioner’s counsel has repeatedly stressed the need to extend the briefing schedule, perhaps indefinitely, due to COVID-19. (Doc. 47, 50). The fact that counsel secured different employment while seeking extensions raises concerns regarding counsel’s diligence in this case. Given the current posture of this case, and the work already performed by counsel, it is not obvious counsel should be permitted to withdraw without, at least, identifying successor lead counsel.1 In any event, the present motion to withdraw does not comply with Local Rule 83.3(b) and must be denied. The Court will also require the Office of the Federal Public Defender to file a statement indicating whether permitting the withdrawal of current counsel would be appropriate and in the best interests of Petitioner, Respondents, and the Court. If the Office

1 If counsel is allowed to withdraw, she may be required to refund previous awards or forego unpaid amounts for amounts she has billed for work that must be redone by new counsel. Cf. United States v. Smith, 387 F.2d 268, 271 (6th Cir. 1967) (contemplating requiring attorney “refund” amount received under the Criminal Justice Act). of the Federal Public Defender believes withdrawal should be permitted, it must identify proposed replacement counsel as soon as possible to ensure adequate representation of Petitioner. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED the Motion to Withdraw (Doc. 55) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED no later than March 26, 2021, the Office of the Federal Public Defender shall file a statement indicating whether permitting withdrawal would be appropriate and, if so, the identity of proposed replacement counsel. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Clerk of Court shall distribute this Order to counsel of record, Federal Public Defender Jon Sands, and Assistant Federal Public Defender Dale Baich. Dated this 12th day of March, 2021. fo - C . ES Honorable Ros yn ©. Silver Senior United States District Judge

_2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Van Winkle v. Shinn, (D. Ariz. 2021).

Van Winkle v. Shinn (Van Winkle v. Shinn) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Richard Earl Smith
387 F.2d 268 (Sixth Circuit, 1967)