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)

Download PDF
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

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?