Filed: Jan. 05, 2017
Latest Update: Jan. 05, 2017
Summary: ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , District Judge . This matter is before the court on a request by former plaintiff's counsel, Mr. Aldon Bolanos, for reinstatement to practice in this district. On September 3, 2016, this court suspended Mr. Bolanos from practice in this district for a minimum of sixty days. Order September 6, 2016, ECF No. 120. The suspension order expressly requires that before Mr. Bolanos can be reinstated, the court must accept his pre-reinstatement declaration that explains t
Summary: ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , District Judge . This matter is before the court on a request by former plaintiff's counsel, Mr. Aldon Bolanos, for reinstatement to practice in this district. On September 3, 2016, this court suspended Mr. Bolanos from practice in this district for a minimum of sixty days. Order September 6, 2016, ECF No. 120. The suspension order expressly requires that before Mr. Bolanos can be reinstated, the court must accept his pre-reinstatement declaration that explains th..
More
ORDER
KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge.
This matter is before the court on a request by former plaintiff's counsel, Mr. Aldon Bolanos, for reinstatement to practice in this district. On September 3, 2016, this court suspended Mr. Bolanos from practice in this district for a minimum of sixty days. Order September 6, 2016, ECF No. 120. The suspension order expressly requires that before Mr. Bolanos can be reinstated, the court must accept his pre-reinstatement declaration that explains the steps he has taken to familiarize himself with this court's local rules and all other rules of professional conduct applicable to practicing attorneys. Id. at 2.
Mr. Bolanos mailed the court a letter dated October 28, 2016, in which he requested reinstatement to practice in this district, and has followed up with emails. The court is docketing scanned copies of these communications concurrently with filing this order. The court DENIES Mr. Bolanos' request for the following reasons.
First, Mr. Bolanos has not filed the required sworn declaration that explains the steps he has taken to familiarize himself with the local rules. Rather, Mr. Bolanos makes fleeting reference to his efforts in his informal letter to the court. As such, his request does not comply with the instructions outlined in the court's suspension order. ECF No. 120 at 2.
Second, despite the court's instruction to demonstrate familiarity with the local rules and all applicable rules of professional conduct, ECF No. 120 at 2, Mr. Bolanos' request for reinstatement is vague and incomplete; for example, it does not reference Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 or other federal rules of practice.
Lastly, an additional basis for Mr. Bolanos' request appears to be moot. Mr. Bolanos explains his motive in seeking reinstatement is to continue to represent his client in Singh v. Pooni, currently pending before another judge of this court. The court notes however that as of September 11, 2016, that client is represented by new counsel. See Case No. 2:14-cv-2146, Not. of Appearance, ECF No. 83.
Accordingly, the court DENIES Mr. Bolanos' request for reinstatement, without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
