Simmons v. CDCR et al
Filing
28
ORDER DENYING 27 Substitution of Attorneys Without Prejudice signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 5/23/2014. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
CHRISTOPHER SIMMONS,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
vs.
1:10-cv-00553-AWI-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING SUBSTITUTION
OF ATTORNEYS, WITHOUT
PREJUDICE
(Doc. 27.)
JONATHAN AKANNO, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
I.
BACKGROUND
18
This is a civil action filed by Christopher Simmons (APlaintiff@), a state prisoner
19
proceeding pro se. On May 22, 2014, Plaintiff filed a request for substitution of attorneys,
20
requesting to substitute attorney Scottlynn J. Hubbard IV, Esq., in place and stead of himself as
21
attorney of record. (Doc. 27.)
22
II.
SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEYS – LOCAL RULE 182(g)
23
Under Local Rule 182(g), Plaintiff must submit a substitution of attorneys document to
24
the Court, setting forth the full name and address of the new attorney, and signed by Plaintiff
25
(as the withdrawing attorney and client) and the new attorney. Local Rule 182(g) (emphasis
26
added). AAll substitutions of attorneys shall require the approval of the Court, and the words
27
>IT IS SO ORDERED= with spaces designated for the date and signature of the Judge affixed
28
at the end of each substitution of attorneys.@ Id.
1
1
Plaintiff’s request for substitution of attorneys does not include the signature of the new
2
attorney, as required by Local Rule 182(g). Therefore, the request must be denied, without
3
prejudice to submission of a new request, or “Stipulation for Substitution of Attorneys” which
4
meets the requirements of Local Rule 182(g).
5
III.
6
7
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for
substitution of attorneys, filed on May 22, 2014, is DENIED without prejudice.
8
9
10
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
May 23, 2014
/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
2
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?