Lanier v. City of Fresno et al

Filing 65

ORDER DENYING without prejudice 58 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney of record for Plaintiff. The November 2, 2011, hearing scheduled on this motion is VACATED, the parties do not need to appear. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 10/26/2011. (Timken, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
KHALID LANIER,

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-01120-LJO-SKO

11
Plaintiff

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE MOTION TO
WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY OF
RECORD FOR PLAINTIFF

12
v.
13
14
15
16

CITY OF FRESNO, a municipal entity,
POLICE OFFICER ALFONSO CASTILLO,
in his individual and official capacities,
POLICE OFFICER STEPHEN TAYLOR in
his individual and official capacities,
COUNTY OF FRESNO, and DOES 1-100,
Jointly and Severally,

(Docket No. 58)

17
18

Defendants.

19

/

20
I. INTRODUCTION
21
On September 26, 2011, counsel for Plaintiff Khalid Lanier ("Plaintiff") filed a motion to
22
withdraw as attorney of record. (Doc. 58.) For the reasons set forth below, the motion to withdraw
23
is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
24
II. DISCUSSION
25
The Local Rules ("L.R.") for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
26
provide specific requirements for the withdrawal of counsel where, as here, the attorney will leave
27
the client in propria persona. (L.R. 182(d).)
28

1

Local Rule 182(d) provides in pertinent part:

2

Unless otherwise provided herein, an attorney who has appeared may not withdraw
leaving the client in propria persona without leave of court upon noticed motion and
notice to the client and all other parties who have appeared. The attorney shall
provide an affidavit stating the current or last known address or addresses of the
client and the efforts made to notify the client of the motion to withdraw.

3
4
5

Plaintiff's counsel's motion to withdraw does not comport with the requirements of L.R. 182(d).

6

Although Plaintiff's counsel filed a declaration in support of the motion (Doc. 59), the

7

declaration does not provide "the current or last known address or addresses of the client." (L.R.

8

182(d).) Further, the declaration fails to explain "the efforts made to notify the client of the motion

9

to withdraw," (Id.), or why Plaintiff is being served at multiple addresses. (Doc. 60, p. 2). While

10

Plaintiff's counsel does provide a certificate of service for the motion to withdraw (Doc. 60), no

11

details regarding "the efforts made to notify" Plaintiff are provided by declaration or affidavit as

12

required under L.R. 182(d).

13

Further, the declaration states that Plaintiff's counsel "advised Plaintiff" that he "wished to

14

withdraw" and "confirmed this in writing to Plaintiff by letter dated September 13, 2011, and

15

subsequently." (Doc. 59, ¶ 9.) However, the sentence ends at that point and Plaintiff's counsel does

16

not set forth what steps he "subsequently" took. Additionally, Plaintiff's counsel does not explain

17

how he initially informed Plaintiff of his desire to withdraw.

18

As Plaintiff's counsel's motion to withdraw fails to meet the requirements of L.R. 182(d), the

19

Court cannot consider the motion at this time. As such, the Plaintiff's counsel's motion to withdraw

20

is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and the hearing scheduled for November 2, 2011, is

21

VACATED. In the event that Plaintiff's counsel wishes to refile a motion to withdraw that complies

22

with L.R. 182(d) (as well as the notice requirements of L.R. 230), he may do so.

23

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

24

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

25

1.

26

Plaintiff's counsel's Motion to Withdraw as Attorney is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE; and

27

///

28

///
2

1

2.

The November 2, 2011, hearing scheduled on this motion is VACATED.

2
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

Dated:
ie14hj

October 26, 2011

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3