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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?