Gaines v. Brown et al
Filing
73
ORDER Requiring Attorney Christine Starkie to File Written Response Clarifying Role in Instant Action signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 02/12/2020. Twenty-One Day Deadline. (Flores, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
1:16-cv-01666-NONE-BAM (PC)
MARY LEE GAINES,
10
ORDER REQUIRING ATTORNEY
CHRISTINE STARKIE TO FILE WRITTEN
RESPONSE CLARIFYING ROLE IN
INSTANT ACTION
Plaintiff,
11
v.
12
BROWN, et al.,
13
TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE
Defendants.
14
15
16
Plaintiff Mary Lee Gaines (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
17
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on
18
Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendants Mirelez and Hoehing for deliberate
19
indifference to medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
20
21
22
On May 1, 2019, Defendants filed a motion for order requiring Plaintiff to post security
under Local Rule 151(b). (ECF No. 60.)
Plaintiff filed two separate oppositions to Defendants’ pending motion, (ECF Nos. 66,
23
67), followed by a request for the Court to disregard the second opposition, (ECF No. 69).
24
Although all documents were purportedly filed by Plaintiff in pro per, both the first opposition
25
and the request to disregard the second opposition were filed electronically through the Court’s
26
CM/ECF system by a user named Christine Starkie. (See Docket Entries for ECF Nos. 66, 69.)
27
28
Pursuant to Local Rule 133, “[a]ny person appearing pro se may not utilize electronic
filing except with the permission of the assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge.” L.R. 133(b)(2)
1
1
(emphasis in original). The rule also requires that all pro se parties file and serve paper
2
documents. Id.
3
The Court has received no communication from Plaintiff indicating that she has retained
4
counsel in this matter, and no attorney has made an appearance. Indeed, all of Plaintiff’s recent
5
filings, including the two electronically-filed documents, indicate that she continues to represent
6
herself in this case. (See ECF Nos. 66, 69.) Accordingly, on February 7, 2020, the Court ordered
7
that the electronically-filed documents be stricken from the record.
However, these improperly filed documents have raised questions regarding Plaintiff’s
8
9
apparent pro se status as well as the role of attorney Christine Starkie. Therefore, the Court finds
10
it appropriate to direct Christine Starkie to file a written response clarifying her role, if any, in the
11
instant action. Ms. Starkie should specifically address the apparent filing of documents, for a pro
12
se litigant, using her CM/ECF account, in an action where she has not appeared as counsel.
13
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED, as follows:
14
1. Attorney Christine Starkie shall file a written response clarifying her role in this action, as
15
discussed herein, within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of this order;
16
2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve this order on Christine Starkie at the following
mailing address:1
17
The Law Offices of Christine Starkie
P.O. Box 470215
San Francisco, CA 94147
18
19
20
3.
21
Any request for an extension of time to comply with this order will require a showing of
good cause.
22
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
Dated:
/s/ Barbara
February 12, 2020
A. McAuliffe
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
25
26
27
1
28
The Court takes judicial notice of the mailing address listed for Christine Starkie, Bar #226354, obtained from the
website for the State Bar of California on February 12, 2020.
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?