Hazeltine v. Hicks et al

Filing 82

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)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICK HAZELTINE, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, vs. 1:14-cv-00056-DAD-GSA-PC ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO REPEATED SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL (ECF No. 80.) FRANCES HICKS, et al., Defendants. 16 17 Rick Hazeltine (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 18 with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds with 19 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint filed on July 6, 2015, on the following claim: Excessive 20 force in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment against defendants Ian Young, Benjamin 21 Gamez, Rashaun Casper, Julius Oldan, Porfirio Sanchez Negrete, David Avilia, Rickey Smith, 22 and Charles Ho (collectively “Defendants”). (ECF No. 27.) 23 On December 26, 2017, Plaintiff filed an objection to Defendants’ repeated 24 substitutions of counsel. (ECF No. 80.) Plaintiff contends that because Defendants have not 25 stated a valid reason for the substitutions, the substitutions appear “suspicious.” (Id. at 1:23.) 26 Plaintiff asserts that since the beginning of this case, Coalinga State Hospital, Defendants’ 27 employer, has “lied, manipulated, tampered with mail, committed perjury, etc., all in what 28 appears to be an attempt to effectuate a desired outcome on behalf of the defendants.” (Id. at 1 1 1:23-27.) Plaintiff asserts that each time he has shown that wrongdoing exists in this case, 2 counsel is abruptly substituted. 3 Plaintiff also argues that this case is unfair because Defendants have received free 4 professional representation, even though they unjustly assaulted Plaintiff, while Plaintiff is a 5 high school dropout with no formal training in law. Plaintiff asserts that he is the victim, yet 6 has no investigators or other assistants to help him. 7 Plaintiff presents no evidence except his own speculation that Defendants are involved 8 in any wrongdoing with respect to their substitutions of counsel. Plaintiff’s argument that this 9 case is unfair because he is representing himself is unavailing. Therefore, Plaintiff’s objection 10 11 12 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. 13 14 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 8, 2018 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?