York v. Stewart et al

Filing 146

ORDER DENYING 144 Plaintiff's Motion for Court Order Regarding Delay in Court Proceedings as Moot and Denying Plaintiff's Motion for an Order to Show Cause Regarding Assignment of New Defense Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 11/29/2021. (Maldonado, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

REGINALD RAY YORK,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

GARCIA, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

Case No. 1:15-cv-01828-DAD-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR COURT ORDER REGARDING DELAY
IN COURT PROCEEDINGS AS MOOT AND
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING
ASSIGNMENT OF NEW DEFENSE
COUNSEL
(ECF No. 144)

17
18

Plaintiff Reginald Ray York (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

19

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment

20

claims against Defendant Garcia for excessive use of force and against Defendant Neighbors for

21

failure to protect. This case is set for a telephonic trial confirmation hearing on December 13,

22

2021 and a jury trial commencing March 1, 2022 before District Judge Dale A. Drozd.

23

On September 21, 2021, attorney Darby Michelle Williams was designated for service on

24

behalf of Defendants, and attorney Byron Miller was terminated from the service list in this case.

25

(ECF No. 136.)

26

Thereafter, and pursuant to the Court’s August 4, 2021 Second Amended Second

27

Scheduling Order, (ECF No. 135), Plaintiff timely submitted notices of the names and locations

28

for unincarcerated witnesses to testify at trial on October 6, 2021. (ECF No. 137, pp. 9–11; 17–
1

1

19.) On November 9, 2021, the Court issued an order regarding the notice of unincarcerated

2

witness information and resetting the deadline for Plaintiff to submit the required witness fees.

3

(ECF No. 140.)

4

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion, filed November 24, 2021, requesting a

5

Court order regarding the delay in issuing the order regarding the unincarcerated witness fees he

6

is required to pay, as well as an order to show cause regarding Defendants’ substitution of a new

7

attorney. (ECF No. 144.) Defendants have not yet had the opportunity to file a response, but the

8

Court finds a response unnecessary. The motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

9

In his motion, Plaintiff states that he has not received a notice from the Court regarding

10

the amount he is required to pay for the attendance of his unincarcerated witnesses. (ECF No.

11

144, p. 2.) The Court notes that Plaintiff’s motion is signed and dated October 30, 2021, and was

12

served on the same date. (Id. at 3, 7.) As noted above, the Court issued an order regarding the

13

unincarcerated witness fees on November 9, 2021. (ECF No. 140.) As it appears that the Court’s

14

order crossed in the mail with Plaintiff’s motion, Plaintiff’s motion is denied as moot.

15

As to Plaintiff’s request for an order to show cause regarding Defendants’ substitution of a

16

new attorney, Plaintiff argues that the reassignment of counsel appears to be a tactic to delay the

17

Court’s proceedings. (ECF No. 144.) Plaintiff further argues that attorney Darby M. Williams is

18

assigned to the Office of the Attorney General’s Northern District, not the Eastern District.

19

Finally, Plaintiff appears to request documented evidence of a conflict of interest between

20

Defendants and each of the attorneys formerly assigned to this action that led to the termination

21

of their services to Defendants, and if such evidence is not provided, that Defendants pay the fees

22

required for the attendance of Plaintiff’s witnesses at trial. (Id.)

23

Plaintiff’s request is denied. Plaintiff has not provided any support for the argument that

24

Defendants’ substitution of new counsel will delay the proceedings, and Defendants have not

25

sought an extension of any existing deadlines in this action. Further, Plaintiff is not entitled to an

26

explanation regarding how or why cases are assigned to different attorneys within the Office of

27

the Attorney General, and individual attorneys within the Office of the Attorney General are not

28

required to demonstrate a conflict of interest with Defendants to justify termination and
2

1
2
3

substitution of new counsel.
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion regarding unincarcerated witness fees and the
substitution of new counsel for Defendants, (ECF No. 144), is HEREBY DENIED.

4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

November 29, 2021

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3