Mincey

MEMORANDUM ***

Petitioner Terry C. Mincey (“Mincey”) appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment rights when it twice denied his post-verdict motion for substitute counsel. Personal disputes with his appointed counsel at the underlying trial led Mincey to dismiss counsel following an adverse jury verdict, and to represent himself during the subsequent civil forfeiture and sentencing proceedings. Reciting the facts only as necessary, we affirm.

Legal Conñict of Interest

A defendant is constructively denied his constitutional right to counsel if his “attorney is representing conflicting interests.” Plumlee v. Masto, 512 F.3d 1204, 1210 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc). Attorney Hodgkins’s representation of Mincey never implicated an actual, legal conflict of interest.

Assuming arguendo that Hodgkins had opposed the motion for substitute counsel (the record indicates he did not), his “siding with the district court” did not create a conflict because the court is a neutral decisionmaker, not an interested party adverse to any of the litigants. See Stenson v. Lambert, 504 F.3d 873, 886 (9th…