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)

Download PDF
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?