Miller et al v. California Department of Corrections et al.,

Filing 31

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 05/24/11 ORDERING that the 30 Declaration of Vip Bhola is STRICKEN. (Benson, A.)

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

EDNA MILLER; DAVID McGUIRE,

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiffs,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS; THE ATTORNEY
GENERALS OFFICE; EDMUND G.
“JERRY” BROWN, JR., an
individual; JULIE HARLAN, an
individual; DAVID J. NEIL, an
individual; JILL H. TALLEY, an
individual; LEWIS KUYKENDALL, an
individual; KATHY BIDD, an
individual; DOES ONE through
TEN, inclusive,
Defendants.
________________________________

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

2:10-cv-02850-GEB-DAD
ORDER

18

On May 2, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a “Declaration of New Counsel

19

for Plaintiffs, Vip Bhola, Esq. to Clarify Limited Issues in Connection

20

with Motion Hearing of May 2, 2011.” (ECF No. 30.) For the following

21

reasons, this document will be stricken.

22

This case was previously referred to a magistrate judge under

23

Local Rule 302(c)(21) because the Plaintiffs were proceeding in propria

24

persona. Subsequently, Defendant Attorney General’s Office filed a

25

“Matter in Abatement and Motion to Dismiss” and Defendants California

26

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Attorney General’s Office,

27

Julie Harlan, David J. Neil, and Jill H. Talley (“Defendants”) filed a

28

“Special Motion to Strike Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation

1

1

(Anit-SLAPP Motion) and Motion to Dismiss”. (ECF Nos. 9, 13.) The

2

magistrate judge ordered Plaintiffs to file their oppositions to these

3

respective motions by February 4, 2011. (ECF No. 14.) Plaintiffs filed

4

an opposition in which they opposed both motions and then retained

5

counsel. (ECF Nos. 18-20.)

6

The Order granting substitution of attorney was filed February

7

15, 2011 and the case was referred back to the district court. (ECF Nos.

8

20, 22.) On March 8, 2011 Defendants re-noticed both motions for hearing

9

on May 2, 2011 before the district court. (ECF No. 23.) Plaintiffs did

10

not file further opposition to the pending motions. The motions were

11

submitted without oral argument on April 29, 2011. (ECF No. 29.)

12

After

the

time

for

filing

oppositions

past,

and

13

notwithstanding having ample opportunity to file oppositions to the

14

pending motions, Plaintiffs’ counsel filed his declaration which is

15

tantamount to filing a late opposition to the motions. Since Plaintiffs

16

do not have leave to file the “Declaration of New Counsel”, Document

17

Number 30 is STRICKEN.

18

Dated:

May 24, 2011

19
20
21

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2