Fields v. Rosenthal
Filing
39
ORDER Granting Defendant Rosenthal's Request (Doc. 37 ), ORDER Approving Substitution Of Attorneys For Defendant Rosenthal, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 9/26/2013. Attorney Susan Eileen Coleman terminated. (Fahrney, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
KEVIN E. FIELDS,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
vs.
RICHARD ROSENTHAL,
15
Defendant.
1:10-cv-01764-GSA-PC
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT
ROSENTHAL’S REQUEST
(Doc. 37.)
ORDER APPROVING SUBSTITUTION
OF ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
ROSENTHAL
16
17
Kevin E. Fields (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights
18
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action by civil complaint at the
19
Kings County Superior Court on August 11, 2010 (Case #10-C0309). On September 23, 2010,
20
defendant Richard Rosenthal (ADefendant@) removed the case to federal court by filing a Notice
21
of Removal of Action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1441(b). (Doc. 1.) This case now proceeds on
22
the Second Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff on August 22, 2012, against Defendant
23
Rosenthal for retaliation, in violation of the First Amendment. (Doc. 17.)
24
On September 25, 2013, Defendant filed a request for approval of a stipulation for
25
substitution of attorneys for Defendant, containing the signatures of Defendant and the
26
incoming attorney of record. (Doc. 37.) After consideration of the stipulation, the court hereby
27
approves and orders the substitution of attorneys as set forth.
28
///
1
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
2
1.
Defendant Rosenthal’s request, is GRANTED; and
3
2.
The stipulation for substitution of attorneys, filed on September 25, 2013, is
4
approved as set forth.
5
6
7
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
9
10
11
September 26, 2013
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:
6i0kij8d
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?