Chess v. Dovey et al

Filing 139

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 6/5/12 denying as unnecessary 135 Motion to proceed pro se. (Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

MICHAEL CHESS,

11

Plaintiff,

12

vs.

13

No. 2:07-cv-1767 DAD P

J. DOVEY, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15

ORDER
/

16

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel. Plaintiff retained his

17

attorney, William Gilg, who filed his formal notice of appearance in this action on June 9, 2011.

18

Now pending before the court is plaintiff’s pro se motion filed May 31, 2012, seeking leave to

19

proceed without counsel and on his own behalf from this point forward in this case.

20

Plaintiff does not require permission from the court to proceed pro se. However,

21

in order for plaintiff to do so, me must file a formal substitution of attorneys in this case that is

22

signed by both himself and Attorney Gilg. See Local Rule 182(g). Until a substitution of

23

attorneys is filed with the court, attorney Gilg will continue to be reflected as counsel of record in

24

/////

25

/////

26

/////
1

1

this case on the court’s docket.1 Plaintiff is also forewarned that this matter is scheduled for trial

2

on June 25, 2012. The court will neither continue nor delay the trial of this long-pending case

3

even if plaintiff now elects to proceed pro se at trial.

4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to proceed pro se

5

(Doc. No. 135) is denied as unnecessary.

6

DATED: June 5, 2012.

7
8
9

DAD:9
ches1767.ps

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
1

24
25
26

On June 4, 2012, plaintiff’s attorney of record, William E. Gilg, filed a notice of nonopposition to plaintiff’s motion, reporting that he had been fired and requesting that the court
grant plaintiff’s motion or continue the trial date. The court will not continue the trial date.
Plaintiff may proceed with his current counsel or file a substitution of attorneys and proceed on
his own behalf. If he elects the latter, plaintiff will be required to comply with the court’s Final
Pretrial Order as well as with all deadlines set forth therein.
2