United States v. Ignacio Ramirez-Cossio

MEMORANDUM

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ramirez-Cossio’s motion to substitute counsel. See United States v. Prime, 431 F.3d 1147, 1154 (9th Cir.2005).

To make this determination, we must review a district court’s denial of a substitution motion by examining “1) the timeliness of the motion; 2) the adequacy of the district court’s inquiry into the defendant’s complaint; and 3) whether the asserted conflict was so great as to result in a complete breakdown in communication and a consequent inability to present a defense.” Id.

1. Ramirez-Cossio brought his first motion to substitute counsel two weeks after obtaining a second continuance of his trial date. He made a subsequent motion to substitute counsel eight days before the next trial date, and he also requested new counsel or permission to represent himself one day before the next trial date.. In light of RamireznCossio’s pattern of dilatory litigation, it was not an abuse of discretion to conclude that the motions were untimely. Id. at 1155.

2. Upon receipt of Ramirez-Cossio’s first motion to substitute counsel, the district court properly inquired into Ramirez-Cossio’s concerns; finding they…