Sutherland v. Yates et al

Filing 52

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion To Disqualify Defense Counsel (Doc. 38 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 9/11/2012. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

WILLIAM SUTHERLAND,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

vs.

1:09-cv-02152-LJO-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY DEFENSE
COUNSEL
(Doc. 38.)

JAMES YATES, et al.,

14
15

Defendants.
_________________________/

16

I.

BACKGROUND

17

William Sutherland (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

18

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on

19

December 11, 2009. (Doc. 1.) This case now proceeds on the First Amended Complaint, filed

20

on December 6, 2010, against defendants Correctional Officer ("C/O") A. Fernando, C/O M.

21

Jericoff, and Warden James A. Yates (“Defendants”) for failure to protect Plaintiff in violation

22

of the Eighth Amendment, and on Plaintiff's related state tort claims. (Doc. 15.)

23

On April 16, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion to disqualify defense counsel from

24

representing Defendants in this action. (Doc. 38.) On April 27, 2012, Defendants filed an

25

opposition to the motion. (Doc. 40.) Plaintiff did not file a reply. Plaintiff's motion is now

26

before the Court.

27
28

1

1
2

II.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY
Plaintiff requests a court order disqualifying members of the California Office of the

3

Attorney General ("AG") from representing defendants Jericoff and Fernando, on the grounds

4

that defendants Jericoff and Fernando are not state employees. Plaintiff argues that defendants

5

Jericoff and Fernando do not legally hold positions as state correctional officers because they

6

failed to file their oaths of office with the Secretary of State, and therefore they are not entitled

7

to representation by the AG.

8
9

Defendants argue that Plaintiff's motion is frivolous because not only does Plaintiff lack
standing to challenge the AG's representation of defendants Jericoff and Fernando, but

10

Defendants have provided Plaintiff with copies of the oaths they took when they began their

11

employment with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Defendants

12

argue that Plaintiff has cited no authority that Defendants are required to take an oath before the

13

AG may represent them, or that the AG may not represent them when no oath has been

14

executed.

15

Before a party, such as Plaintiff, can seek relief from a federal court, the party must

16

satisfy the requirements for Article III standing, which requires that the party has personally

17

suffered an "injury in fact" causally related to the conduct in issue and redressable by a

18

favorable decision of the court. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555,560-61, 112 S.Ct.

19

2130, 2136-37 (1992). The burden is on the party seeking relief to establish these "irreducible

20

constitutional minimum" elements with respect to the particular issues the party wishes to have

21

decided. Id. "Standing doctrine [also] embraces several judicially self-imposed limits on the

22

exercise of federal jurisdiction, such as the general prohibition on a litigant's raising another

23

person's legal rights . . ." Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751, 104 S.Ct. 3315, 3324 (1984); see

24

also Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 117 S.Ct. 1154, 1161 (1997) (discussing the prudential

25

rule that a plaintiff's grievance must arguably fall within the "zone of interests" protected or

26

regulated by the applicable law).

27
28

2

1

Plaintiff, has not established a personal stake in the resolution of the motion to

2

disqualify. No rights Plaintiff seeks to vindicate by this litigation are implicated in the AG's

3

representation of Defendants, and Plaintiff can suffer no harm from whatever attenuated

4

conflict may exist between the AG and Defendants. Accordingly, the motion to disqualify is

5

denied based on Plaintiff's lack of standing.

6

III.

7
8

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify

is DENIED.

9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
6i0kij

September 11, 2012

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

3