Giraldes v. Beard

Filing 44

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 2/8/16 DENYING 41 Motion for leave of court. (Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LARRY GIRALDES,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:14-cv-1780 CKD P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

JEFFREY BEARD,
Defendant.

16
17

At plaintiff’s request, he was appointed pro bono counsel in this prisoner civil rights

18

action on March 11, 2015. (ECF No. 18.) Plaintiff subsequently moved for substitution of

19

counsel (ECF No. 29); however, after reviewing the response from plaintiff’s counsel, the court

20

concluded it would be in plaintiff’s interest to retain his attorney rather than litigate this action

21

pro se, and denied the motion. (ECF No. 32.)

22

Plaintiff next filed a pro se motion for a preliminary injunction, which was denied. (ECF

23

No. 36.) The court informed plaintiff that as long as he was represented by counsel, his pro se

24

filings would be disregarded, “except as they pertain to the retention of counsel.” (Id.)

25

Meanwhile, plaintiff’s attorney continued to meet and confer with opposing counsel on

26

scheduling issues in this action. (ECF Nos. 37 & 38.)

27
28

Before the court is plaintiff’s latest pro se motion. (ECF No. 41.) He again complains
that his attorney is not representing his interests or litigating this action as plaintiff wishes. (Id.)
1

1

He requests that his previous, pro se motion for injunction be reconsidered, with his attorney

2

“being allowed to continue doing what he wants, when he wants, without plaintiff being involved

3

for the remainder of this case.” (Id. at 3.)

4

In a recent filing, plaintiff’s counsel points out that plaintiff’s ongoing pro se filings have

5

“created uncertainty as to Plaintiff’s relationship with his counsel and the scope of his authority.”

6

(ECF No. 42 at 3.) The court agrees. Plaintiff is advised that, if he continues to file pro se

7

motions, the court will look favorably upon any motion to withdraw filed by plaintiff’s attorney,

8

and plaintiff will litigate this action pro se. See Hill v. Hall, 818 F. Supp. 269, 272 (E.D. Wisc.

9

1993) (courts may decline to appoint counsel where a litigant has acted irresponsibly or

10
11

unreasonably toward his or her prior counsel).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for leave of court (ECF

12

No. 41) is denied.

13

Dated: February 8, 2016

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20

2/gira1780.ord(3)

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2