Gonzalez v. Razo et al
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MANUEL ANTONIO GONZALEZ,
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
J. RAZO, et al.,
(ECF NO. 133)
Manuel Antonio Gonzalez is a state prisoner, and is the plaintiff in this civil rights
action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which includes attendant state law claims. Mr.
Gonzalez is represented by counsel.
On October 31, 2018, Mr. Gonzalez filed a motion to assist attorney Stanley Goff, Jr.,
Plaintiff’s counsel, in motion for preliminary and permanent injunction requiring Plaintiff to be
placed on single cell status. (ECF No. 133).
As Mr. Gonzalez himself notes, this is his second such motion. The Court struck
Plaintiff’s original motion, stating that “Plaintiff's attorney may refile the motion if he believes
it is appropriate.”
(ECF No. 92).
Despite this, Mr. Gonzalez himself once again
inappropriately filed the motion. Thus, the Court will once again strike Mr. Gonzalez’s request
for injunctive relief.
In addition to requesting an injunction, Mr. Gonzalez states that Mr. Goff told him he
was going to file the motion but did not do so, and asks the Court to order Mr. Goff to explain
why he did not file the motion. (ECF No. 133, pgs. 4-5). The Court will not issue such an
order. As the Court told Mr. Gonzalez previously, “[i]f Plaintiff has an issue with how his
counsel is communicating with him, he should address that issue with his counsel. If Plaintiff
believes that his counsel’s representation is inadequate, he may take the appropriate action
including ending [Mr. Goff’s] representation and proceeding pro se, substituting counsel, or
even taking action against Mr. Goff…. So long as Plaintiff continues to retain Mr. Goff, Mr.
Goff represents Plaintiff in this case.” (ECF No. 108, pgs. 2-3).
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction is STRICKEN; and
2. Plaintiff’s request for an order directing Mr. Goff to explain why he did not file
the motion for an injunction is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
November 1, 2018
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?