Jackson v. Yates et al

Filing 141

ORDER DISCHARGING Order to Show Cause Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed Against Counsel Dale McKinney; ORDER DIRECTING Clerk of Court to Serve Copy of Order on Dale McKinney, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 12/10/14. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CURTIS RENEE JACKSON,

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Plaintiff,
v.
Y. A. YATES, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:11-cv-00080-LJO-BAM PC
ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE
IMPOSED AGAINST COUNSEL DALE
MCKINNEY
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO
SERVE COPY OF ORDER ON DALE MCKINNEY

Plaintiff Curtis Renee Jackson, (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner filed this civil rights action

19

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on January 18, 2011. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s second

20

amended complaint against Defendant Mendez for excessive force in violation of the Eighth

21

Amendment; and against Defendants Daley, Samonte, Nichols, Valdez and Gonzales for failure to

22

intervene in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

23

Counsel Dale McKinney (“Counsel”) submitted papers signed on behalf of Plaintiff in this

24

action. (ECF No. 137.) As Counsel was not the attorney of record for Plaintiff and had not filed a

25

notice of appearance or notice of substitution, the Court issued an order on November 25, 2014,

26

directing Counsel to show cause in writing why sanctions should not be imposed for the failure to

27

comply with this Court’s rules within fourteen days. (ECF No. 139.)

28
1

1

On December 8, 2014, Counsel filed a response to the order to show cause. In the response,

2

Counsel represents that he assisted Plaintiff in this matter “by typing his papers as well as mailing

3

them for Plaintiff.” (ECF No. 140, p. 1.) Counsel also represents that he signed the documents for

4

Plaintiff at Plaintiff’s request so that they could be filed on time, not as any indication of

5

representation. Counsel did not know or believe that he was violating any rules of court for typing and

6

mailing Plaintiff’s papers. (Id. at p. 2.)

7

This Court recognizes that there are certain degrees of undisclosed attorney guidance for

8

clients that need not be prohibited. A licensed attorney does not violate procedural, substantive, and

9

professional rules of a federal court by lending some assistance to friends, family members, and others

10

with whom he or she may want to share specialized knowledge. Attorneys cross the line, however,

11

when they gather and anonymously present legal arguments, with the actual or constructive knowledge

12

that the work will be presented in some similar form in a motion before the Court. “With such

13

participation the attorney guides the course of litigation while standing in the shadows of the

14

Courthouse door.” Ricotta v. Cal., 4 F.Supp.2d. 961, 987 (S.D. Cal. 1998). The Court advises Counsel

15

McKinney that anyone who may be assisting Plaintiff by the continued practice of “ghostwriting” may

16

be violating the rules of professional conduct and will undermine Plaintiff’s pro se status before this

17

Court. Based upon counsel’s response, the Court accepts counsel’s representation of good faith. No

18

further action will be taken at this time.

19

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

20

1. The Order to Show Cause issued on November 25, 2014, is DISCHARGED; and

21

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on Dale McKinney at 2251
Florin Road, Suite 138, Sacramento, California 95822.

22
23
24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

December 10, 2014

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28
2