Slama v. City of Madera, et al

Filing 70

ORDER Directing the Clerk of the Court to Serve Plaintiff's Counsel of Record with Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration and Proposed Order for Substitution of Attorney, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 07/21/2011. (Documents 63 and 65 sent electronicly and via U.S.P.S.)(Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

ANTHONY DEAN SLAMA,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CITY OF MADERA, et al.,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
_____________________________________ )

Case No.: 1:08-cv-00810-AWI-SKO
ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF
THE COURT TO SERVE PLAINTIFF’S
COUNSEL OF RECORD WITH
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND PROPOSED
ORDER FOR SUBSTITUTION OF
ATTORNEY
(Docs. 63, 65)

14
15
On April 15, 2011, Plaintiff Anthony Dean Slama (“Plaintiff”) filed a motion for
16
reconsideration pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 and a proposed order signed by Plaintiff seeking to
17
substitute himself as attorney of record in this action and place himself in propria persona. (Docs.
18
63, 65.) Local Rule 182(g) requires that a withdrawing attorney sign the request for substitution of
19
counsel. Plaintiff’s counsel of record, Steven A. Geringer, has not signed the requested substitution
20
of attorney.
21
As an initial matter, the Court notes that parties have the right to “plead and conduct their
22
own cases personally.” 28 U.S.C. § 1654. Further, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration essentially
23
asserts that Mr. Geringer failed to file oppositions to the motions for summary judgment by
24
Defendant Madera Police Department and then informed Plaintiff that the Court had dismissed the
25
action after finding that there was no triable issue of fact. (Doc. 63, 6:1-26, Exh. C.) Chief District
26
27
28

1

Judge Anthony W. Ishii’s orders concerning the motions for summary judgment found that

2

oppositions had not been filed by Plaintiff. (Doc. 56, 1:21-22; Doc. 59, 1:26.)1

3

Based upon Plaintiff’s representations and in the interest of justice, the Court is inclined to

4

allow Plaintiff to substitute counsel in order to represent himself in propria persona. Nonetheless,

5

since the request for substitution of attorney has not been signed by Mr. Geringer in accordance with

6

Local Rule 182(g), the Court will allow Mr. Geringer an opportunity to respond to Plaintiff’s request.

7

The Clerk of the Court shall, therefore, serve Mr. Geringer electronically and via U.S. mail

8

with Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and the proposed order for substitution of attorney (Docs.

9

63, 65). Mr. Geringer shall have five (5) days from the date of service of this order to file a response

10

or objection to the substitution of counsel. Mr. Geringer's failure to file a response shall be construed

11

as his consent to the substitution of counsel.

12

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

13

1.

The Clerk of the Court shall serve Plaintiff’s counsel of record, Mr. Geringer,

14

the motion for reconsideration and the proposed order for substitution of

15

attorney, (Docs. 63, 65), electronically and via U.S. mail; and

16

2.

Any response or objection by Mr. Geringer to Plaintiff’s request for

17

substitution of counsel shall be filed within five (5) days of the date of service

18

of this order.

19

The Court shall deem Mr. Geringer's failure to file a response as Mr. Geringer's consent to

20

the substitution of counsel and Plaintiff shall be allowed to substitute himself as the attorney of

21

record and place himself in propria persona.

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

Dated:
ie14hj

July 21, 2011

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
1

27

As Mr. Geringer failed to file any oppositions to the motions for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s behalf, it
is not clear to the Court whether Mr. Geringer had abandoned representation of his client.

28

2