United States v. Markette Tillman
756 F.3d 1144
9th Cir.2014Background
- Tension between CJA funding delays and defendant’s right to appointed counsel and timely payment of vouchers.
- Grele was appointed pro hac vice for Tillman in a Nevada federal case involving capital punishment considerations.
- Grele was removed as counsel, sanction order entered, and referral to California Bar; Tillman’s appeal challenges both orders.
- District court found Grele extorted the court and violated ethical obligations, and referred him for disciplinary action.
- Grele challenged the sanctions order via mandamus; Tillman sought review of the disqualification order, arguing collateral/pendent jurisdiction.
- Court ultimately vacated the sanctions order via mandamus and dismissed the disqualification appeal for lack of jurisdiction under Flanagan.]
- Note: The opinion emphasizes that voucher delays can impact counsel’s ability to represent indigent defendants and that due process and notice issues tainted the sanctions, while disqualification lacked finality for direct appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the disqualification order is appealable | Tillman argues pendent jurisdiction allows review with sanctions. | Grele contends the disqualification is reviewable with the sanctions order. | Lack of jurisdiction; disqualification review not available on interlocutory appeal. |
| Whether mandamus is proper to review the sanctions order | Grele seeks mandamus to vacate improper sanctions. | The government did not oppose mandamus but recognizes CJA policy. | Grant mandamus; vacate sanctions order due to lack of notice/hearing and clearly erroneous findings. |
| Whether due process violations tainted the sanctions decision | Grele asserts lack of notice/hearing violated due process. | District court conducted a hearing; sanctions justified by conduct. | Sanctions order vacated; due process violation established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Flanagan v. United States, 465 U.S. 259 (1984) (collateral appeals require final judgments; disqualification not immediately appealable)
- Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U.S. 323 (1940) (final judgment rule; collateral review constraints)
- Cunningham v. Gates, 229 F.3d 1271 (9th Cir. 2000) (pendency limits on appellate review; ‘inextricably intertwined’ standard narrowly applied)
- Cole v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Idaho, 366 F.3d 813 (9th Cir. 2004) (no summary removal without notice; due process in sanctions/removal)
- In re Van Dusen, 654 F.3d 838 (9th Cir. 2011) (Bauman factors for mandamus jurisdiction; weigh multiple factors)