ORDER

MIRANDA M. DU, District Judge.

On December 22, 2014, the Court dismissed this habeas petition as untimely (dkt. no. 118), and judgment was entered (dkt. no. 126). Though petitioner is represented by counsel, he filed a notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in pro se (see dkt. no. 121). On January 21, 2015, this Court denied several pro se motions filed by petitioner and advised him to file no further documents in this closed case unless directed to do so by this Court upon resolution of petitioner's appeal (dkt. no. 127). Thereafter, on January 29, 2015, petitioner filed a pro se motion to request Local Rule 7-2(d) consent to grant motions orders (dkt. no. 128).

On February 4, 2015, petitioner's counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel, explaining that petitioner informed him that he would pursue his appeal pro se (dkt. no. 129). Petitioner subsequently filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss his appeal, which the Ninth Circuit granted on April 3, 2015 (dkt. no. 131). Order on mandate was entered on April 6, 2015 (dkt. no. 132).

Accordingly, good cause appearing, it is ordered that the motion to withdraw as counsel (dkt. no. 129) is granted nunc pro tunc.

It is further ordered that petitioner's pro se motion to request Local Rule 7-2(d) consent to grant motions orders (dkt. no. 128) is denied.

It is further ordered that petitioner is again advised to file no further documents in this closed case.