Sykes v. Athannasious et al

Filing 49

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 10/4/13 ORDERING that Plaintiffs motions to amend the complaint, filed in pro se 44 45 and 46 , are denied without prejudice. Mr. Fisher shall retain his appointment as pro bono counsel f or plaintiff, absent further order of this court. Discovery may commence in this action, pursuant to the Discovery and Scheduling Order, filed in tandem with this order. In addition, counsel with the California Attorney Generals Office shall, wi thin fourteen days after the filing date of this order, file and serve a statement that updates defense counsels statement filed July 19, 2013 (ECF No. 43), which indicated that the Office would likely accept service of process on behalf of defendant Dr. Bick, upon his anticipated return to the United States in late August 2013. Alternatively, within fourteen days, the Office may accept service of process in this action on behalf of defendant Dr. Bick.(Dillon, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MILTON SYKES, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:12-cv-2570 TLN KJN P Plaintiff, v. ATHANNASIOUS, et al., ORDER Defendants. 16 17 On August 9, 2013, this court directed plaintiff’s appointed counsel to respond to 18 plaintiff’s motions to amend his complaint, filed in pro se; each motion also criticizes counsel’s 19 representation of plaintiff. Counsel timely submitted a confidential response, which he served on 20 plaintiff. Although plaintiff was directed to submit and serve a confidential response within 21 seven days, he failed to do so. On September 16, 2013, the court again directed plaintiff to 22 submit a response; plaintiff again failed to respond. Hence, the court twice directed plaintiff to 23 respond to his counsel’s declaration (ECF Nos. 47, 48), both orders triggered by plaintiff’s pro se 24 filings expressing dissatisfaction with his legal representation and seeking amendment of his 25 complaint (ECF Nos. 44-6). However, plaintiff has responded to neither order, nor otherwise 26 communicated with the court. 27 28 The court construes plaintiff’s silence as acquiescence to his continued representation by appointed counsel, Mr. Isaac Fisher. It is clear from Mr. Fisher’s declaration that he is actively 1 1 involved in plaintiff’s representation. Moreover, as previously noted, the court is keenly aware of plaintiff’s advanced age (78), 2 3 and alleged medical problems. (See ECF No. 48 at 2.) As of this writing, plaintiff remains 4 incarcerated at the California Medical Facility. Plaintiff’s age and alleged medical conditions, 5 together with his failure to respond to the court’s orders, support his continued representation by 6 Mr. Fisher at this time.1 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. Plaintiff’s motions to amend the complaint, filed in pro se (ECF Nos. 44-6), are denied 9 without prejudice. 10 11 2. Mr. Fisher shall retain his appointment as pro bono counsel for plaintiff, absent further order of this court. 12 13 3. Discovery may commence in this action, pursuant to the Discovery and Scheduling Order, filed in tandem with this order. 4. In addition, counsel with the California Attorney General’s Office shall, within 14 15 fourteen days after the filing date of this order, file and serve a statement that updates defense 16 counsel’s statement filed July 19, 2013 (ECF No. 43), which indicated that the Office would 17 likely accept service of process on behalf of defendant Dr. Bick, upon his anticipated return to the 18 United States in late August 2013. Alternatively, within fourteen days, the Office may accept 19 service of process in this action on behalf of defendant Dr. Bick. 20 SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: October 4, 2013 22 23 sykes.2570. cnsl.2 24 25 26 27 28 1 Should Mr. Fisher seek to withdraw his representation of plaintiff, as he has indicated he may, the court will consider such request only if another attorney, located by the court, has agreed to undertake plaintiff’s representation. 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?