Cardoza v. Tann et al

Filing 95

ORDER RE 94 Request for Phone Call and Case Status Inquiry signed by Chief Judge Ralph R. Beistline on 06/10/2015. (Flores, E)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LAWRENCE PEPE CARDOZA,
Case No. 1:11-cv-01386-RRB
Plaintiff,
ORDER
vs.
M. TANN, et al.,
Defendants.

The record in this case reflects that Plaintiff Lawrence Pepe Cardoza is represented
in this matter by Stanley Goff. At Docket 94 Cardoza filed a document pro se entitled
“Requesting Phone Call & Case Status Inquiry.” In that document Cardoza contends that,
because he has had limited contact with his counsel, Cardoza is unaware of the current
status of this case. Cardoza requests this Court enter an order compelling counsel to
communicate with Cardoza weekly.
This Court is reluctant to intervene between a party and the party’s counsel. In this
case however, it appears that there may be good cause for a limited intervention.1
Accordingly, if he has not done so, counsel for Plaintiff should forthwith apprise Plaintiff of

1

Of particular concern are two matters of which it appears Plaintiff was not
appropriately apprised. The record reflects that counsel stipulated to the dismissal with
prejudice of certain Defendants. Docket 90. It also appears that, as of the date of Plaintiff’s
pending request, June 3, Cardoza was not apprised of the settlement conference held in
this matter on June 4. Docket 93. Nor does it appear from the record that Plaintiff himself
was present at that settlement conference, either in person or telephonically.
ORDER
Cardoza v. Tann, 1:11-cv-01386-RRB – 1

the current status of this matter, including the status of all proceedings or events of which
Plaintiff has not been previously provided appropriate information. The mode of
communication to be determined by counsel under all the circumstances, including the
availability or feasibility of telephonic communications. Further, counsel should timely
apprise Plaintiff of all future matters or events affecting the disposition of the case.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this Order on both Plaintiff and
Plaintiff’s counsel.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of June, 2015.
S/ RALPH R. BEISTLINE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER
Cardoza v. Tann, 1:11-cv-01386-RRB – 2