Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Gonzalez v. Scharffenberg, 1:16-cv-01675-DAD-EPG (PC). (2018)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20180914h12 Visitors: 6
Filed: Sep. 12, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 12, 2018
Summary: ORDER VACATING HEARING, DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR CALL, GRANTING PLAINTIFF AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND DIRECTING ATTORNEY STANLEY SILVER TO RETURN PLAINTIFF'S CASE FILE (EFC NOS. 137 & 139) ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO SEND A COPY OF THIS ORDER AND PLAINTIFF'S MOTION (ECF NO. 139) TO STANLEY SILVER ERICA P. GROSJEAN , Magistrate Judge . Mario Gonzalez ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil right
More

ORDER VACATING HEARING, DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR CALL, GRANTING PLAINTIFF AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND DIRECTING ATTORNEY STANLEY SILVER TO RETURN PLAINTIFF'S CASE FILE

(EFC NOS. 137 & 139)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO SEND A COPY OF THIS ORDER AND PLAINTIFF'S MOTION (ECF NO. 139) TO STANLEY SILVER

Mario Gonzalez ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On July 2, 2018, Plaintiff filed a letter indicating that he had retained attorney Stanley Silver to represent him in this case. (ECF No. 124). On September 4, 2018, Plaintiff filed a request for the Court to allow him to speak with his attorney via telephone or to have a hearing on the matter. (ECF No. 137). Also pending was Defendants' motion for summary judgment, which was filed on June 25, 2018 (ECF No. 123), and which Plaintiff had not opposed.

Accordingly, the Court set a conference to discuss the status of the case, in order to determine if Plaintiff is represented and to confirm whether Plaintiff intends to oppose the pending motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 138).

On September 10, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion with the Court. (ECF No. 139). Plaintiff requests his case file back from Mr. Silver, and asks for a sixty-day extension of time to oppose Defendants' motion for summary judgment. He also states that he wishes to invoke his pro se rights.

Based on Plaintiff's motion filed on September 10, 2018, it appears that Mr. Silver no longer represents Plaintiff in this case, and that Plaintiff does intend to oppose Defendants' motion for summary judgment pro se. Given this, the Court will vacate the status conference. Additionally, as Mr. Silver does not represent Plaintiff at this time, the Court will deny Plaintiff's request for a phone call with Mr. Silver (ECF No. 137).

As there were issues regarding whether Plaintiff was represented, the Court finds good cause to grant Plaintiff's request for a sixty-day extension of time to oppose Defendants' motion for summary judgment.1

Finally, because Plaintiff needs his case file to respond to Defendants' motion for summary judgment, and because Mr. Silver has an ethical obligation to return the case file,2 the Court will direct Mr. Silver to return Plaintiff's case file.

Accordingly, Stanley Silver is DIRECTED to return Plaintiff's case file.3

Additionally, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The status conference set for September 24, 2018, at 1:30 PM is VACATED; 2. Plaintiff's request for the Court to allow him to speak with his attorney via telephone or to have a hearing on the matter is DENIED; 3. Plaintiff has sixty days from the date of service of this order to respond to Defendants' motion for summary judgment; and 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a copy of this order and Plaintiff's motion filed on September 10, 2018 (ECF No. 139), on: Stanley Silver, 444 S Brand Blvd #203, San Fernando, CA 91340-3619.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. The Court notes that Plaintiff is also responsible for filing a settlement conference statement in compliance with Judge Sheila K. Oberto's order entered on August 3, 2018 (ECF No. 132).
2. "A member whose employment has terminated shall: (1) Subject to any protective order or nondisclosure agreement, promptly release to the client, at the request of the client, all the client papers and property. `Client papers and property' includes correspondence, pleadings, deposition transcripts, exhibits, physical evidence, expert's reports, and other items reasonably necessary to the client's representation, whether the client has paid for them or not." State Bar of California Rule 3-700(D)(1).
3. While Plaintiff's motion filed on September 10, 2018, asks that Stanley Silver be directed to return Plaintiff's case file, at one point it also suggests that Mr. Silver already returned the case file. If Mr. Silver has already returned Plaintiff's case file he may disregard this direction.
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