Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Pack v. Lizarraga, 2:18-cv-02944 KJM AC P. (2020)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20200212649 Visitors: 41
Filed: Feb. 10, 2020
Latest Update: Feb. 10, 2020
Summary: ORDER ALLISON CLAIRE , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff is a California state prisoner who proceeds in this civil rights action with retained counsel. By order filed January 24, 2020, the undersigned found service of the Second Amended Complaint appropriate for defendants Padmesh, Pettersen, Toralba and Gentry. ECF No. 9. The court directed CDCR to serve process on its employees, defendants Pettersen, Toralba and Gentry, and directed plaintiff's counsel to serve process on defendant Padmesh, wh
More

ORDER

Plaintiff is a California state prisoner who proceeds in this civil rights action with retained counsel. By order filed January 24, 2020, the undersigned found service of the Second Amended Complaint appropriate for defendants Padmesh, Pettersen, Toralba and Gentry. ECF No. 9. The court directed CDCR to serve process on its employees, defendants Pettersen, Toralba and Gentry, and directed plaintiff's counsel to serve process on defendant Padmesh, who is employed by San Joaquin General Hospital. See id. at 10 ("Plaintiff's counsel shall serve process on defendant Dr. Hosahalli Padmesh, M.D., a surgeon at San Joaquin General Hospital, pursuant to the requirements set forth in Rule 4, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."). In the same order, this court denied without prejudice plaintiff's pro se motion to dismiss this action due to the requirement that, while legally represented, plaintiff may appear only through his counsel. Id. at 9.

Presently pending is a motion filed by plaintiff's counsel requesting withdrawal from his representation of plaintiff in this action. ECF No. 15. Counsel explains that the motion reflects the wishes of plaintiff, who intends to proceed pro se or with newly retained counsel. Id.

In this court, attorneys representing parties in a civil case are subject to the requirements of Local Rule 182(d), which provides:

Unless otherwise provided herein, an attorney who has appeared may not withdraw leaving the client in propria persona without leave of court upon noticed motion and notice to the client and all other parties who have appeared. The attorney shall provide an affidavit stating the current or last known address or addresses of the client and the efforts made to notify the client of the motion to withdraw. Withdrawal as attorney is governed by the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California, and the attorney shall conform to the requirements of those Rules. The authority and duty of the attorney of record shall continue until relieved by order of the Court issued hereunder. Leave to withdraw may be granted subject to such appropriate conditions as the Court deems fit.

Because no defendant has yet appeared in this action, counsel is relieved from the requirement that his motion be served on other parties. However, it is not evident that the motion was served on plaintiff himself. See ECF No. 15 at 3. Moreover, it appears that service of process on defendant Padmesh remains outstanding. Therefore, a decision on counsel's motion will be deferred until both matters are completed.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within seven (7) days after the filing date of this order, plaintiff's counsel shall file documentation demonstrating service of his pending motion on plaintiff;

2. Within thirty (30) days after the filing date of this order, plaintiff's counsel shall demonstrate service of process of the Second Amended Complaint on defendant Dr. Hosahalli Padmesh, M.D.; and

3. Within twenty-one (21) days after the filing date of this order, plaintiff may file a response to the pending motion to withdraw filed by his current counsel.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer