Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

KIMBALL v. COLVIN, 2:14-cv-2224-EFB. (2016)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20160115p06 Visitors: 17
Filed: Jan. 15, 2016
Latest Update: Jan. 15, 2016
Summary: ORDER EDMUND F. BRENNAN , Magistrate Judge . On April 10, 2015, plaintiff's counsel, Marc V. Kalagian, filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for plaintiff. ECF Nos. 14, 16. In response, plaintiff filed a proposed order substituting plaintiff, in pro se, as counsel of record. ECF No. 18. Plaintiff Dustin Kimball signed and indicated his consent to the proposed order of substitution. 1 Id. In light of plaintiff's consent to Mr. Kalagian's motion to withdraw, the court granted Mr. Kalagian
More

ORDER

On April 10, 2015, plaintiff's counsel, Marc V. Kalagian, filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for plaintiff. ECF Nos. 14, 16. In response, plaintiff filed a proposed order substituting plaintiff, in pro se, as counsel of record. ECF No. 18. Plaintiff Dustin Kimball signed and indicated his consent to the proposed order of substitution.1 Id.

In light of plaintiff's consent to Mr. Kalagian's motion to withdraw, the court granted Mr. Kalagian's motion to withdraw as counsel for plaintiff. ECF No. 21. The May 13, 2015 order granting the motion instructed plaintiff to, within 21 days of the order, either (1) have new counsel file an appearance or (2) file an appearance pro se. Plaintiff was also directed to file his motion for summary judgment within 60 days. Plaintiff was admonished that failure to comply with the order could result in dismissal of the action.

The time for compliance has passed, and plaintiff has not filed an appearance pro se, nor has new counsel appeared in this action. Further, plaintiff has not filed his motion for summary judgment.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. This action is dismissed for failure to comply with court orders and failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 110.

2. The Clerk is directed to close this case.

FootNotes


1. Local Rule 182(g) contemplates a substitution of attorneys, not a substitution of an attorney for a party proceeding pro se.
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