Hazeltine v. Hicks et al
ORDER OVERRULING Plaintiff's Objection to Repeated Substitution of Counsel 80 , signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 01/8/18. (Martin-Gill, S)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S
OBJECTION TO REPEATED
SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL
(ECF No. 80.)
FRANCES HICKS, et al.,
Rick Hazeltine (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds with
Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint filed on July 6, 2015, on the following claim: Excessive
force in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment against defendants Ian Young, Benjamin
Gamez, Rashaun Casper, Julius Oldan, Porfirio Sanchez Negrete, David Avilia, Rickey Smith,
and Charles Ho (collectively “Defendants”). (ECF No. 27.)
On December 26, 2017, Plaintiff filed an objection to Defendants’ repeated
substitutions of counsel. (ECF No. 80.) Plaintiff contends that because Defendants have not
stated a valid reason for the substitutions, the substitutions appear “suspicious.” (Id. at 1:23.)
Plaintiff asserts that since the beginning of this case, Coalinga State Hospital, Defendants’
employer, has “lied, manipulated, tampered with mail, committed perjury, etc., all in what
appears to be an attempt to effectuate a desired outcome on behalf of the defendants.” (Id. at
1:23-27.) Plaintiff asserts that each time he has shown that wrongdoing exists in this case,
counsel is abruptly substituted.
Plaintiff also argues that this case is unfair because Defendants have received free
professional representation, even though they unjustly assaulted Plaintiff, while Plaintiff is a
high school dropout with no formal training in law. Plaintiff asserts that he is the victim, yet
has no investigators or other assistants to help him.
Plaintiff presents no evidence except his own speculation that Defendants are involved
in any wrongdoing with respect to their substitutions of counsel. Plaintiff’s argument that this
case is unfair because he is representing himself is unavailing. Therefore, Plaintiff’s objection
to Defendants’ repeated substitutions of counsel shall be overruled.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objection, filed on December
26, 2017 is OVERRULED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
January 8, 2018
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?