Gonzalez v. Razo et al

Filing 134

ORDER Striking Plaintiff's Second Motion to Assist Attorney Stanley Goff, Jr., In Motion for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction and Denying Request for Order Directed at Attorney Goff re 133 , signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 11/1/18. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MANUEL ANTONIO GONZALEZ,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

Case No. 1:15-cv-01098-DAD-EPG (PC)
ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND
MOTION TO ASSIST ATTORNEY
STANLEY GOFF, JR., IN MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT
INJUNCTION AND DENYING REQUEST
FOR ORDER DIRECTED AT ATTORNEY
GOFF

v.
J. RAZO, et al.,
Defendants.

16

(ECF NO. 133)

17
18
19

Manuel Antonio Gonzalez is a state prisoner, and is the plaintiff in this civil rights

20

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which includes attendant state law claims. Mr.

21

Gonzalez is represented by counsel.

22

On October 31, 2018, Mr. Gonzalez filed a motion to assist attorney Stanley Goff, Jr.,

23

Plaintiff’s counsel, in motion for preliminary and permanent injunction requiring Plaintiff to be

24

placed on single cell status. (ECF No. 133).

25

As Mr. Gonzalez himself notes, this is his second such motion. The Court struck

26

Plaintiff’s original motion, stating that “Plaintiff's attorney may refile the motion if he believes

27

it is appropriate.”

(ECF No. 92).

Despite this, Mr. Gonzalez himself once again

28
1

1

inappropriately filed the motion. Thus, the Court will once again strike Mr. Gonzalez’s request

2

for injunctive relief.

3

In addition to requesting an injunction, Mr. Gonzalez states that Mr. Goff told him he

4

was going to file the motion but did not do so, and asks the Court to order Mr. Goff to explain

5

why he did not file the motion. (ECF No. 133, pgs. 4-5). The Court will not issue such an

6

order. As the Court told Mr. Gonzalez previously, “[i]f Plaintiff has an issue with how his

7

counsel is communicating with him, he should address that issue with his counsel. If Plaintiff

8

believes that his counsel’s representation is inadequate, he may take the appropriate action

9

including ending [Mr. Goff’s] representation and proceeding pro se, substituting counsel, or

10

even taking action against Mr. Goff…. So long as Plaintiff continues to retain Mr. Goff, Mr.

11

Goff represents Plaintiff in this case.” (ECF No. 108, pgs. 2-3).

12

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that:

13

1. Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction is STRICKEN; and

14

2. Plaintiff’s request for an order directing Mr. Goff to explain why he did not file

15

the motion for an injunction is DENIED.

16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 1, 2018

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2