Osegueda et al v. Stanislaus County Public Safety Center et al

Filing 81

ORDER VACATING 79 Findings and Recommendations Recommending Dismissal of Action for Failure to Obey a Court Order and ORDER Directing Counsel to File a Motion to Withdraw signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 4/26/2022. 30-day deadline. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ARMANDO OSEGUEDA, et al.,

12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiffs,
v.
STANISLAUS COUNTY PUBLIC
SAFETY CENTER, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 1:16-cv-01218-JLT-BAM
ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING
DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO
OBEY A COURT ORDER
(Doc. 79)
ORDER DIRECTING COUNSEL TO FILE
MOTION TO WITHDRAW

17
18
19
20

On January 29, 2019, the Court approved the parties’ stipulation to stay this matter

21

pending resolution of the state criminal proceedings against Plaintiffs Armando Osegueda and

22

Robert Palomino. (Doc. 50.) The Court ordered Plaintiffs to file a written status report every

23

ninety (90) days notifying the Court of the status of the criminal matter. (Id.)

24

On April 14, 2022, the Court issued findings and recommendations recommending

25

dismissal of this action based on the repeated failure of Plaintiffs Armando Osegueda, Robert

26

Palomino, David Lomeli and Jairo Hernandez to file timely status reports. (Doc. 79.) The

27

findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any

28

objections by Plaintiffs should be filed within fourteen (14) days of service. (Id.)
1

1

On April 25, 2022, in lieu of filing objections, Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a Case Status

2

Update. (Doc. 80.) According to the report, the criminal cases against Plaintiffs Armando

3

Osegueda and Robert Palomino are ongoing. In January 2022, Plaintiff Palomino reportedly

4

terminated counsel’s representation and advised that he was seeking new counsel or intended to

5

proceed in pro per. Counsel has not had contact with any of the remaining plaintiffs and seeks to

6

withdraw from this matter as to all plaintiffs. (Id.)

7

Having considered the response, the findings and recommendations to dismiss this action

8

issued on April 12, 2022, are HEREBY VACATED. However, counsel’s request to withdraw

9

from this matter fails to comply with Local Rule 182, and the request will not be addressed

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

substantively at this time. Local Rule 182 provides, in relevant part, as follows:
Withdrawal. Unless otherwise provided herein, an attorney who has appeared may
not withdraw leaving the client in propria persona without leave of court upon
noticed motion and notice to the client and all other parties who have appeared. The
attorney shall provide an affidavit stating the current or last known address or
addresses of the client and the efforts made to notify the client of the motion to
withdraw. Withdrawal as attorney is governed by the Rules of Professional Conduct
of the State Bar of California, and the attorney shall conform to the requirements
of those Rules. The authority and duty of the attorney of record shall continue until
relieved by order of the Court issued hereunder. Leave to withdraw may be granted
subject to such appropriate conditions as the Court deems fit.

17

E.D. Cal. L.R. 182(d). Insofar as counsel seeks to withdraw in this action, counsel must file a

18

noticed motion in compliance with Local Rule 182 within thirty (30) days of the date of this

19

Order. Counsel is cautioned that any failure to comply with the Court’s order may result in the

20

imposition of sanctions against counsel and/or reissuance of the recommendation to dismiss this

21

action based on the repeated failures to comply with Court orders.

22
23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

April 26, 2022

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
2