Williams v. The State of California et al

Filing 53

ORDER REQUIRING Plaintiff's Attorney to Respond to 52 Plaintiff's Motion for New Counsel Within Seven (7) Days, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 5/21/2012. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 DONALD B. WILLIAMS, CASE NO. O RDE R RE Q UI RING PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR NEW COUNSEL 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 1:11-cv-182-LJO-MJS (PC) v. (ECF No. 52) 13 THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., RESPONSE DUE WITHIN SEVEN DAYS 14 Defendants. 15 / 16 17 18 19 20 Plaintiff Donald B. Williams (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action is proceeding against Defendants Enenmoh, Oneyeje, LeMay, Byers, and Faria for inadequate medical care under the Eighth Amendment. 21 On May 16, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for new counsel. (ECF No. 52.) In his 22 motion, Plaintiff alleges that his Court appointed attorney has failed to respond to letters 23 from Plaintiff regarding his case. (Id.) Counsel has filed no objections to Defendant’s 24 motion to dismiss (ECF No. 45) nor objection to the Court’s Findings and 25 Recommendations recommending dismissal of this action (ECF No. 50). 26 27 28 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s attorney, Rebecca C. Sudtell, is ORDERED to respond to Plaintiff’s motion for new counsel within seven (7) days of entry of this Order. In addition, the Clerk’s Office is ORDERED to send Plaintiff a copy of the docket in -1- 1 this action and a copy of every document filed in this action since December 9, 2011, the 2 date on which Ms. Sudtell was appointed as Plaintiff’s attorney. 3 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: ci4d6 May 21, 2012 Michael J. Seng /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 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?