Hedrick et al v. Grant

Filing 103

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 6/11/2013 ORDERING it is unclear whether CRLA's response should be considered a duly noticed withdrawal motion to which an opposition or statement of non-opposition is required; CRLA's withdrawal request is hereby noticed for hearing at 9:00 a.m. on 7/1/2013; Motion to Terminate Consent Decree hearing RESET for 7/29/2013 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10 (GEB) before Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr. (Waggoner, D)

1
2
3
4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
8
9

DARRIL HEDRICK, DALE ROBINSON,
KATHY LINDSEY, MARTIN C. CANADA,
DARRY TYRONE PARKER,
individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated,

10
11
12

Plaintiffs,
v.

16

JAMES GRANT, as Sheriff of Yuba
County; Lieutenant FRED J. ASBY,
as Yuba County Jailer; JAMES
PHARRIS, ROY LANDERMAN, DOUG
WALTZ, HAROLD J. “SAM” SPERBECK,
JAMES MARTIN, as members of the
YUBA COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS,

17

Defendants.
________________________________

13
14
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:76-cv-00162-GEB-EFB
ORDER SETTING HEARING ON
REQUEST TO WITHDRAW AS
COUNSEL AND RESCHEDULING
HEARING ON MOTION TO
TERMINATE CONSENT DECREE

18
19

On May 13, 2013, Defendant Yuba County filed a motion to

20

terminate the consent decree filed over thirty years ago in this class

21

action on behalf of incarcerated persons at Yuba County Jail. California

22

Rural Legal Assistance (“CRLA”), one of Plaintiffs’ attorneys, filed

23

what it characterizes as a “Response to Motion to Terminate Consent

24

Decree,” but in that response, CRLA seeks to withdraw as counsel for

25

Plaintiffs. (Resp. to Mot. to Terminate Consent Decree, (“Resp.”), ECF

26

No. 98.) CRLA explains that as a recipient of Legal Service Corporation

27

funding, CRLA can neither serve as counsel in class actions nor in

28

litigation on behalf of incarcerated persons. (Resp. 2:10—4:3 (citing 45

1

1

C.F.R. §§ 1617.1—.4, 1637.1—.4).) Since it is unclear whether CRLA’s

2

response should be considered a duly noticed withdrawal motion to which

3

an opposition or statement of non—opposition is required, see E.D. Cal.

4

L.R. 230(c), CRLA’s withdrawal request is hereby noticed for hearing on

5

July 1, 2013, commencing at 9:00 a.m. Any opposition or statement of

6

non—opposition to CRLA’s withdrawal motion shall be filed no later than

7

June 24, 2013. Further, in light of the foregoing, the hearing set for

8

June 17, 2013, on the Motion to Terminate Consent Decree is rescheduled

9

to commence at 9:00 a.m. on July 29, 2013.

10

Dated:

June 11, 2013

11
12
13

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
Senior United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2