Moore v. Fox et al

Filing 40

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota on 2/11/2022 RELIEVING Attorney Paul Richard Martin; GRANTING 27 Plaintiff's Request to Proceed Pro Se; ORDERING Clerk to redesignate this action as a pro se prisoner civil rights action; STAYING this matter for 60 days to allow Plaintiff to retain replacement counsel; and ORDERING Plaintiff to file a status report within 60 days of the date of this order regarding replacement counsel (Henshaw, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DUANE REED MOORE, SR.,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:16-CV-2641-MCE-DMC

v.

ORDER

ROBERT W. FOX, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding with retained counsel, brings this civil rights action

17
18

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On August 19, 2019, the District Judge dismissed this case without prejudice for

19
20

lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and orders. See ECF No. 14. The

21

Court thereafter denied Plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment. See ECF No. 17. Plaintiff

22

then filed an appeal of the District Judge’s dismissal order and final judgment. See ECF No. 26.

23

On March 23, 2020, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted Plaintiff’s motion for voluntary

24

dismissal of his appeal. See ECF No. 29. On July 20, 2020, the District Judge issued an order

25

denying Plaintiff’s motion to remove then-retained counsel, to continue all proceedings, and for

26

relief from judgment. See ECF No. 31. Plaintiff thereafter filed a second appeal. See ECF No.

27

32.

28

///
1

1

On June 25, 2021, the appellate court issued an unpublished memorandum

2

disposition reversing the District Judge’s order denying Plaintiff’s motion for relief from

3

judgment. See ECF No. 35. In doing so, the Ninth Circuit stated:

12

The district court denied Moore’s second and third requests for
reconsideration. However, Moore demonstrated in these motions that he
experienced attorney abandonment, which can “constitute the
extraordinary circumstances necessary to justify relief under Rule
60(b)(6).” Foley v. Biter, 793 F.3d 998, 1002 (9th Cir. 2015). We
therefore remand to the district court to provide Moore with an
opportunity to notify the court as to whether he is proceeding pro se or
substituting in another attorney, and an opportunity to serve defendants.
We do not consider the district court’s order dismissing Moore’s
action for failure to comply with a court order or its order denying
Moore’s first motion for reconsideration because Moore did not timely
appeal from those orders. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a) (notice of appeal must
be filed within 30 days of the entry of judgment or the denial of certain
post-judgment motions); Tillman v. Ass’n of Apartment Owners of Ewa
Apartments, 234 F.3d 1087, 1089 (9th Cir. 2000) (“The court of appeals
lacks jurisdiction to decide an appeal if the notice of appeal is not timely
filed.”).

13

ECF No. 35.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

14

The Ninth Circuit’s mandate remanding the matter was filed on July 19, 2021. See ECF No. 36.
On August 4, 2021, Plaintiff filed a pro se document entitled “Plaintiff’s

15
16

Notification of Replacement of Counsel and Intention to Proceed In Propria Personal in Order to

17

Serve the Named Defendants in This Action.” ECF No. 37. On January 3, 2022, the District

18

Judge issued a minute order referring Plaintiff’s pro se filing at ECF No. 37 to the undersigned

19

for decision. See ECF No. 39. The District Judge also referred the matter to the undersigned for

20

all pre-trial scheduling. See id.

21

In his notice, which has been referred to the undersigned for consideration,

22

Plaintiff states that he relieves current counsel, intends to retain replacement counsel, and wishes

23

to proceed pro se in the meantime. See ECF No. 37. Good cause appearing therefor, and

24

following the Ninth Circuit’s decision as well as the District Judge’s referral, the Court will

25

relieve current counsel and order that this matter be redesignated a pro se prisoner civil rights

26

action. Plaintiff will also be afforded time to retain replacement counsel.

27

///

28

///
2

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1.

Current retained counsel, Paul Richard Martin, Esq., is relieved;

3

2.

On Plaintiff’s request, ECF No. 37, Plaintiff shall proceed pro se;

4

3.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to redesignate this action as a pro se

5

prisoner civil rights action;

6

4.

This matter is stayed for 60 days to allow Plaintiff to retain replacement

8

5.

Plaintiff shall file a status report within 60 days of the date of this order

9

regarding replacement counsel.

7

counsel; and

10
11

Dated: February 11, 2022
____________________________________
DENNIS M. COTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3