Christian v. Bissen, et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
TARYN CHRISTIAN,
Petitioner,
vs.
CLAYTON FRANK, Director,
State of Hawaii, Department
of Public Safety,
Respondent.
_____________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL NO. 04-00743 DAE-LK
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL
Before the Court is Mark Barrett, Esq.’s Motion to
Withdraw as Counsel for Petitioner Taryn Christian
(“Petitioner”), filed on December 16, 2010 (“Motion to
Withdraw”). 	The Motion to Withdraw is supported by Mr. Barrett’s
assertion that the case has been completed, and Petitioner is
aware that Mr. Barrett is seeking to withdraw and is in favor of
withdrawal. 	[Motion to Withdraw at 1.] 	Respondent
Clayton Frank, Director, State of Hawaii Department of Public
Safety (“Respondent”) filed a statement of no position on
December 17, 2010. 	Mr. Barrett was granted permission to appear
as counsel pro hac vice for Petitioner on January 11, 2005. 	At
the hearing on the Motion to Withdraw, Keith Shigetomi, Esq.,
local counsel for Petitioner, orally asked to be permitted to
withdraw as counsel (“Oral Motion to Withdraw”).
After careful consideration of the Motion to Withdraw
Case 1:04-cv-00743-MWJS-RT Document 250 Filed 02/10/11 Page 1 of 4
PageID.<pageID>

2
and the Oral Motion to Withdraw, the arguments of counsel, and
the applicable case law, this Court HEREBY GRANTS Mr. Barrett’s
Motion to Withdraw and Mr. Shigetomi’s Oral Motion to Withdraw.
DISCUSSION
Local Rule 86.3(b) provides that the district court may
permit an attorney to withdraw upon a motion establishing “good
cause.” 	In determining whether there is good cause for
withdrawal, courts have considered whether the client is
cooperative and willing to assist the attorney in the case. 	See,
e.g., Whiting v. Lacara, 187 F.3d 317, 321 (2d Cir. 1999); see
also United States v. Cole, 988 F.2d 681, 683 (7th Cir. 1993)
(stating that denying a motion to withdraw is not an abuse of
discretion unless there is a conflict of interest or
irreconcilable conflict between the attorney and the client that
is so severe that it results in a complete lack of communication
preventing an adequate defense). 	Even where good cause exists,
however, other factors may take precedence. 	In re Tutu Wells
Contamination Litig., 164 F.R.D. 41, 44 (D.V.I. 1995).
In the present case, this Court finds that Petitioner
has exhausted all avenues of appeal in the instant case, and his
petition for a writ of habeas corpus is no longer pending before
the district court. 	Withdrawal of legal representation at this
point will therefore neither disrupt the proceedings nor
prejudice Petitioner’s cause in this matter. 	Cf. Byrd v.
Case 1:04-cv-00743-MWJS-RT Document 250 Filed 02/10/11 Page 2 of 4
PageID.<pageID>

3
District of Columbia, 271 F. Supp. 2d 174, 176 (D.D.C. 2003)
(stating that, in determining whether to allow counsel to
withdraw, the court may consider the extent to which withdrawal
will disrupt the case and the amount of time it would take the
client to retain new counsel) (citations omitted). 	The Court
notes that, in anticipation of counsel’s withdrawal, Petitioner
filed, inter alia, a pro se Motion to Reopen Original Habeas
Corpus Petition Due to Newly Discovered Evidence of Fraud Upon
the Court on January 7, 2011 (“Motion to Reopen”).
This Court therefore FINDS that Mr. Barrett and
Mr. Shigetomi have established that good cause exists for their
withdrawal. 	To the extent, if any, that this matter can proceed
any further, Petitioner shall proceed pro se unless he elects to
retain new counsel. 	This Court cautions Petitioner that pro se
litigants are expected to comply with all procedural and
substantive rules of the court. 	See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d
565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se litigants must follow the same
rules of procedure that govern other litigants.”) (citation
omitted). 	Accordingly, Plaintiff is put on notice that, if he
fails to comply with the rules of the court, he may face
sanctions, including dismissal of his complaint or other
appropriate sanctions. 	See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11; Local Rule
LR11.1. 	Specifically, Plaintiff is ordered to provide the
Clerk’s Office with his mailing address, e-mail address, and
Case 1:04-cv-00743-MWJS-RT Document 250 Filed 02/10/11 Page 3 of 4
PageID.<pageID>

4
telephone number by March 23, 2011, and to promptly notify the
Clerk’s Office of any changes to his contact information in the
future.
On the basis of the foregoing, Mr. Barrett’s Motion to
Withdraw and Mr. Shigetomi’s Oral Motion to Withdraw are HEREBY
GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAI’I, February 9, 2011.
/S/ Leslie E. Kobayashi
Leslie E. Kobayashi
United States District Judge
TARYN CHRISTIAN V. CLAYTON FRANK, ETC.; CIVIL NO. 04-00743 DAE-
LK; ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL
Case 1:04-cv-00743-MWJS-RT Document 250 Filed 02/10/11 Page 4 of 4
PageID.<pageID>