Turner v. Riaz et al

Filing 62

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 06/14/19 ORDERING the Clerk of Court is directed to indicate on the docket that plaintiffs notice filed June12, 2019 61 ,is not relevant to the instant action but only to Turner v. Byer, Case No. 2 :17-cv-1869 EFB P. Plaintiff is admonished to refrain from filing any further pro se matters in the instant action while he is represented by counsel. In addition to serving plaintiffs counsel with a copy of this order, the Clerk of Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on plaintiff himself at the California Health Care Facility in Stockton.(Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LAFONZO R. TURNER,

12

No. 2:16-cv-0969 MCE AC P

Plaintiff,
ORDER

13

v.

14

N. RIAZ, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Lafonzo Turner is a state prisoner proceeding with appointed counsel in this civil

18

rights action. Plaintiff’s counsel, Alexander Nowinski, is appointed for the limited purpose of

19

representing plaintiff through the resolution of dispositive motions. Defendants have filed a

20

motion for summary judgment that is scheduled for hearing on August 21, 2019. Mr. Nowinski

21

will represent plaintiff at that hearing and in submitted briefing. Plaintiff has filed a “notice”

22

(ECF No. 61) concerning his receipt of legal property and states that it “is regarding [his] motion

23

to stay,” identifying two cases – the instant case, and Turner v. Byer, Case No. 2:17-cv-1869 EFB

24

P. Only in the latter case is there a motion to stay pending, and plaintiff’s notice was also filed in

25

that action. Therefore, the Clerk of Court will be directed to note on the docket that plaintiff’s

26

recent filing does not apply to the instant case.

27
28

Plaintiff is informed that Mr. Nowinski was appointed to represent him only in the present
action; Mr. Nowinski does not represent plaintiff in any other case. Moreover, because plaintiff
1

1

is represented by counsel in the instant case, he may not communicate directly with the court or

2

the other parties. This court will not consider a pro se filing from plaintiff while he is represented

3

by counsel. See e.g. McCullough v. Graber, 726 F.3d 1057, 1059 n.1 (9th Cir. 2013) (declining

4

to consider pro se letters from habeas petitioner because he was represented by counsel);

5

Rosenblum v. Campbell, 370 Fed. Appx. 782, at *1 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Because [petitioner] is

6

represented by counsel, only counsel may submit filings.”). While plaintiff has appointed counsel

7

in this case, his communications must be through his attorney. Therefore, any further pro se

8

filings by plaintiff while he is represented by counsel will be ignored.

9
10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Clerk of Court is directed to indicate on the docket that plaintiff’s notice filed June

11

12, 2019 (ECF No. 61), is not relevant to the instant action but only to Turner v. Byer, Case No.

12

2:17-cv-1869 EFB P.

13
14
15

2. Plaintiff is admonished to refrain from filing any further pro se matters in the instant
action while he is represented by counsel.
3. In addition to serving plaintiff’s counsel with a copy of this order, the Clerk of Court is

16

directed to serve a copy of this order on plaintiff himself at the California Health Care Facility in

17

Stockton.

18

SO ORDERED.

19

DATED: June 14, 2019

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2