Huckabee v. Medical Staff at CSATF et al

Filing 87

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Ex Parte Request For Assistance In Regaining Documents From Court-Appointed Counsel (ECF No. 86 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 9/23/2013. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANTHONY CRAIG HUCKABEE,

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Plaintiff,
v.
MEDICAL STAFF at CSATF, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:09-cv-00749-LJO-BAM PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE
REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE IN REGAINING
DOCUMENTS FROM COURT-APPOINTED
COUNSEL (ECF No. 86)

Plaintiff Anthony Craig Huckabee (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner formerly represented by
appointed-counsel in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On September 20, 2013, Plaintiff filed the instant ex parte request for an order compelling his

20

former court-appointed counsel to return the remainder of his legal file. (ECF No. 86.) The Court

21

finds that Plaintiff’s request moot and it shall be denied.

22

On September 13, 2013, the Court directed Mr. Kharazi and the law firm of Yarra, Kharazi &

23

Clason to provide the Court with information regarding the status of Plaintiff’s legal file. On

24

September 20, 2013, Mr. Kharazi filed a declaration which states, under penalty of perjury, that his

25

office mailed Plaintiff a complete copy of his entire legal file immediately after the Court granted the

26

motion to withdraw as counsel. Mr. Kharazi also declares that his office received correspondence

27

from Plaintiff dated August 22, 2013, indicating that he was missing certain documents, including

28

medical records. Thereafter, on August 29, 2013, Mr. Kharazi’s office mailed Plaintiff a complete
1

1

copy of all documents filed in this matter, a copy of all medical records obtained on behalf of Plaintiff,

2

information regarding service of process, and a detailed explanation of work done in this case. All

3

documents were mailed to Plaintiff’s current address, and Mr. Kharazi’s office has no other documents

4

in its possession. (ECF No. 85.)

5
6

Based on the response received from Mr. Kharazi, Plaintiff has been provided a complete copy
of his case file. As such, Plaintiff’s ex parte application is unnecessary and is DENIED as moot.

7
8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

September 23, 2013

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2