1 2

3

4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 JORGE CONTRERAS, Case No. 1:19-cv-01523-JLT

12 Petitioner, DEATH PENALTY CASE

13 v. ORDER: (1) GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW BY CO-COUNSEL CRAIG 14 RAUL MORALES, Acting Warden of the M. COOLEY, and (2) REFERRING CASE California Substance Abuse Treatment TO THE SELECTION BOARD FOR 15 Facility, RECOMMENDATION OF REPLACEMENT COUNSEL 16 Respondent.

17 18 On April 1, 2025, appointed Criminal Justice Act co-counsel Craig M. Cooley, 19 admitted to appear pro hac vice, moved to withdraw from representation of Petitioner in this 28

habeas corpus proceeding.1 (Doc. 140.) The Court, having reviewed the motion, 21 the record, and the applicable law finds the matter amenable to decision without a hearing. 22 E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). 23 BACKGROUND 24 The facts of this case, reflected in the Court’s docket, are summarized below: 25 • On December 11, 1996, Petitioner was convicted of first degree felony murder 26 and robbery, with the special circumstance of murder in the commission of the 27 1 Criminal Justice Act of 1964, as amended, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A. 1 robbery, and sentenced to death. Tulare County Superior Court Case No. 2 37619. 3 • The California Supreme Court affirmed Petitioner’s conviction on appeal, and 4 summarily denied on the merits his petition for writ of habeas corpus. 5 • On October 28, 2019, Petitioner began this federal proceeding pursuant to 28

. 7 • On December 6, 2019, the Court appointed as co-counsel Brian M. Pomerantz, 8 Esq., and Ken Murray, Esq., to represent Petitioner in the case for all purposes, 9 pursuant to

. 10 • Mr. Murray filed notice of withdrawal as co-counsel on April 22, 2022; the 11 Court appointed Craig M. Cooley as replacement co-counsel on June 28, 2022. 12 • On August 1, 2023, Petitioner filed his § 2254 petition stating 38 claims for 13 relief (including subclaims), supported by 26 appended exhibits. (Docs. 126 14 through 126-26.) 15 • On January 8, 2024, the Court stayed this proceeding and held it in abeyance 16 pending the Petitioner’s exhausting his petition in state court. (See Docs 126, 17 134). 18 • On October 22, 2024, the Court lifted the exhaustion stay subject to previously 19 ordered post-exhaustion scheduling. (Doc. 139 at 2.) 20 DISCUSSION 21 Mr. Cooley states as grounds for withdrawal that his family and parenting 22 circumstances regularly require his presence in Toronto, Canada, and prevent adequate and 23 effective representation in this case. 24 The local rules of this district require an attorney who would withdraw and leave his or 25 her client without representation to obtain leave of the Court upon motion noticed to the client 26 and all parties, in conformity with the requirements of the California Rules of Professional 27 Conduct. E.D. Cal. L.R. 182(d). In such a case, the decision to grant or deny counsel's motion 1 withdrawal, potential delay in resolution of the case, and potential prejudice to the litigants and 2 the administration of justice. See Copeland v. Challenge Sec. Servs., Inc.,

, at 3 *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2020). 4 Federal courts often look to applicable state rules in determining whether adequate 5 grounds exist to excuse counsel from further representation.2 Stewart v. Boeing Co.,

3168269, at *1 (C.D. Cal. June 19, 2013) (citing Denney v. City of Berkeley,

2648293, at *2-*3 (N.D. Cal. Nov.18, 2004)) (looking to the California Code of Professional 8 Conduct when determining counsel's motion to withdraw). 9 Here, the Court finds good cause to grant Mr. Cooley’s request that he be relieved as 10 counsel. See CA ST RPC Rule 1.16(b)(10) (a lawyer may withdraw from representing a client 11 if “the lawyer believes in good faith, in a proceeding pending before a tribunal, that the tribunal 12 will find existence of other good cause for withdrawal”). Nothing before the Court suggests 13 that Petitioner will suffer delay or prejudice by virtue of Mr. Cooley’s withdrawal. See CA ST 14 RPC Rule 1.16(d) (counsel may not withdraw unless he “has taken reasonable steps to avoid 15 reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the client.”). Notably, co-counsel Brian 16 Pomerantz continues to represent Petitioner for all purposes in the case, which is not yet at 17 issue. 18 The Court will refer the matter to the Selection Board for recommendation of suitable 19 replacement counsel. Petitioner remains entitled to counsel pursuant to

(e).3 20 The Court finds appointment of counsel to be appropriate in this case. E.D. Cal. L.R. 191(c). 21

22 2 See Local Rule 180(e), which provides that “Every member of the Bar of this Court, and any attorney permitted to practice in this Court under (b), shall become familiar with and comply with the standards of professional 23 conduct required of members of the State Bar of California and contained in the State Bar Act, the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California, and court decisions applicable thereto, which are hereby adopted as standards of professional conduct in this Court. . . .” 24

3

(e) provides that “Unless replaced by similarly qualified counsel upon the attorney’s own 25 motion or upon motion of the defendant, each attorney so appointed shall represent the defendant throughout every subsequent stage of available judicial proceedings, including pretrial proceedings, trial, sentencing, motions 26 for new trial, appeals, applications for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States, and all available post-conviction process, together with applications for stays of execution and other appropriate motions 27 and procedures, and shall also represent the defendant in such competency proceedings and proceedings for executive or other clemency as may be available to the defendant.” 1 | In this district, the Selection Board, as appointing authority, makes all recommendations for 2 | appointment of counsel in capital § 2254 matters. See E.D. Cal. General Order 677; E.D. Cal. 3 | L.R. 191(c). Therefore, the Court ORDERS, 4 1. The motion to withdraw by appointed co-counsel Craig M. Cooley (Doc. 140) 5 is GRANTED. 6 2. This matter is REFERRED to the selection board for their recommendation of 7 replacement counsel. Assistant Federal Defender David Harshaw shall submit 8 the Board’s recommendation of counsel to the Court under seal by emailing it to 9 ApprovedSealed @caed.uscourts.gov, promptly upon issuance. 10 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to SERVE this order upon: (i) counsel for the 11 parties, (ii) the Selection Board, through David Harshaw, Assistant Federal 12 Defender, 801 I Street, Third Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814, (Email) 13 david_harshaw @fd.org, and (iii) Connie Garcia, CJA Panel Administrator, 14 Federal Defender’s Office, 2300 Tulare Street, Suite 330, Fresno, CA 93721, 15 [email protected]. 16 4. Counsel for Petitioner shall PROVIDE him with a copy of this order. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19| Dated: _April 2, 2025 ears [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28