Alexander, et al v. CA Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al

Filing 26

MEMORANDUM and ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., on 2/16/12 ORDERING that Counsel's 19 Motion to Withdraw is DENIED without prejudice. Unless Counsel renews his motion in the interim, not later than 30 days following the date this Order is electronically filed, Plaintiffs are ordered to file a Joint Status Report advising this Court as to the status of this case. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

JONATHAN NICHOLAS ALEXANDER,
personal representative for
ESTATE OF JONATHAN ALEXANDER,
et al.,

No. 2:11-cv-00640-MCE-CKD

13
Plaintiffs,
14
v.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

15

17

STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION, a State of
California agency, et al.,

18

Defendants.

16

19

----oo0oo----

20

Per his Motion (ECF No. 19), Thornton L. Davidson

21

(“Counsel”) seeks leave of this Court to withdraw as Plaintiffs’

22

attorney.

23

without prejudice.1

24

///

25

///

For the following reasons, Counsel’s Motion is DENIED

26
27
28

1

Because oral argument will not be of material assistance,
the Court orders this matter submitted on the briefing. E.D.
Cal. Local Rule 230(g).
1

BACKGROUND

1
2
3

In June of 2010, Decedent Jonathan Alexander (“Decedent”)

4

was murdered by a fellow inmate while incarcerated at the Deuel

5

Vocational Institution in Tracy, California.

6

children, Jonathan Nicholas Alexander, individually and as

7

personal representative for the Estate of Jonathan Alexander, and

8

Amber Dawn Alexander, by and through her Guardian Ad Litem

9

Jonathan Nicholas Alexander (“Plaintiffs”), subsequently

Decedent’s

10

initiated this action against, among others, the California

11

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) and the

12

Secretary of the CDCR (collectively “Defendants”).

13

According to Counsel, he became involved in the case some

14

time prior to August of 2010 when the attorney representing the

15

inmate that had killed Decedent advised him Plaintiffs needed

16

representation to preserve their statutory rights.

17

Decl., ¶ 3.

18

with the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims

19

Board and then the Complaint here.

20

Counsel’s

Plaintiffs retained Counsel, who filed first a claim

Id., ¶¶ 4-6.

Counsel has now filed a Motion to Withdraw as Attorney.

In

21

his Motion, Counsel contends that this case “goes beyond a

22

wrongful death or in-custody death” and that it instead

23

“addresses various problems that are ingrained in the state’s

24

prison system, their effect on the in-custody care of Plaintiffs’

25

father and his assailant, as well as how that care may have

26

contributed to Plaintiffs’ father’s death.”

27

Given the complexity of these issues, Counsel thus believes his

28

firm lacks the time and resources to litigate this matter.
2

Motion, 2:25-27.

1

Counsel’s Dec., ¶ 7.

2

proceedings Counsel feels he is not qualified to pursue, Counsel

3

has not yet effected service of the Complaint.

4

As such, to avoid the commencement of

Id., ¶ 8.

In addition, Counsel has contacted other attorneys in an

5

attempt to locate substitute representation for his clients.

6

Id., ¶ 9.

7

counsel had been retained, and Counsel thus seeks to leave his

8

clients in propria persona.

9

was filed, but Counsel advised the Court that Plaintiffs believe

10

As of the filing of his motion, however, no substitute

Id.

No opposition to this motion

he has a duty to litigate their claims.

Id., ¶ 10.

11
STANDARD

12
13
14

In this district, “an attorney who has appeared may not

15

withdraw leaving the client in propria persona without leave of

16

court upon noticed motion and notice to the client and all other

17

parties who have appeared.”

18

“Withdrawal as attorney is governed by the Rules of Professional

19

Conduct of the State Bar of California.”

20

Professional Conduct 3-700(C)(6) permits a member of the State

21

Bar to seek to withdraw when “[t]he member believes in good

22

faith...that the tribunal will find the existence of...good cause

23

for withdrawal.”

24

employment until the member has taken reasonable steps to avoid

25

reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the client,

26

including giving due notice to the client, allowing time for

27

employment of other...and complying with applicable laws and

28

rules.”

E.D. Cal. Local Rule 182(d).

Id.

California Rule of

However, “[a] member shall not withdraw from

California Rules of Professional Conduct 3-700(A)(2).
3

1

Whether to grant leave to withdraw is subject to the sound

2

discretion of the Court and “may be granted subject to such

3

appropriate conditions as the Court deems fit.”

4

Rule 182(d); Canandaigua Wine Co., Inc. v. Edwin Moldauer, 2009

5

WL 89141, *1 (E.D. Cal.).

E.D. Cal. Local

6
ANALYSIS

7
8
9

The Court sympathizes with Counsel’s predicament and is

10

inclined to find that his motion is supported by good cause.

11

See, e.g., Segal v. State Bar, 44 Cal. Ed 1077, 1084 (“If an

12

attorney lacks the time and resources to pursue a client’s case

13

with reasonable diligence, he or she is obliged to decline

14

representation.”).

15

the prejudice to Plaintiffs from withdrawal is as minimal as

16

Counsel believes or that Counsel has done all that is reasonably

17

necessary to assist Plaintiffs in locating substitute

18

representation.

19

That being said, this Court is not convinced

Indeed, leaving Plaintiffs to proceed in propria persona at

20

this juncture is potentially prejudicial to their interests in

21

that the Complaint is currently subject to dismissal pursuant to

22

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

23

Pro. 4(m) (“If a defendant is not served within 120 days after

24

the complaint is filed, the court–-on motion or on its own after

25

notice to the plaintiff–-must dismiss the action without

26

prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made

27

within a specified time.”); see also Order Requiring Joint Status

28

Report, ¶ 1 (ECF No. 8).
4

Fed. R. Civ.

1

Moreover, the Estate of Jonathan Alexander will suffer additional

2

prejudice upon Counsel’s withdrawal since, as an entity, it is

3

unable to represent its own interests before this Court.

4

e.g., E.D. Cal. Local Rule 183(a) (“A corporation or other entity

5

may appear only by an attorney.”).

6

See,

In addition, Counsel’s general assertions that he has

7

“contacted attorneys across California to find a firm that is

8

better suited to litigate this matter” and that he is still

9

“awaiting responses” are insufficient to persuade this Court he

10

has taken reasonable steps to avoid prejudice to his clients.

11

Counsel’s Decl., ¶ 9.

12

information as to the specific and affirmative means Counsel has

13

employed to assist his clients in their search for substitute

14

counsel.

15

is convinced he has done everything reasonably possible to secure

16

such substitute representation.

17

///

18

///

19

///

20

///

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

This Court needs much more detailed

The Court will not permit Counsel to withdraw until it

5

CONCLUSION

1
2
3

Accordingly, for the reasons just stated, Counsel’s Motion

4

to Withdraw (ECF No. 19) is DENIED without prejudice.

5

Counsel renews his motion in the interim, not later than thirty

6

(30) days following the date this Order is electronically filed,

7

Plaintiffs are ordered to file a Joint Status Report advising

8

this Court as to the status of this case.

9
10

Unless

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 16, 2012

11
12
13

_____________________________
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6