Dunlap v. United States of America

Filing 38

ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson granting 35 Plaintiff's counsel's Motion to Withdraw as Attorney; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE as to why case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Counsel to file proof of service on Plaintiff by 08/31/12. Plaintiff's written response due by 10/01/12 or case will be dismissed. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/27/2012)

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 5 OLLIE EUGENE DUNLAP III, 6 Plaintiff, 7 8 9 v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, NO. C11-1276 TEH ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Defendant. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 This matter came before the Court on August 27, 2012, on Robert Breecker’s motion 12 to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff Ollie Eugene Dunlap III. Breecker has filed two 13 substitutions of counsel, dated March 5 and June 14, 2012, in which Dunlap apparently 14 intended to substitute himself as counsel and proceed pro se. It is not clear to the Court that 15 Dunlap understands what it means to proceed without counsel, and the Court intended to 16 discuss this issue with him at the August 27 hearing. However, despite being ordered to 17 appear personally by the Court’s July 17, 2012 order, Dunlap failed to do so. 18 At the hearing, Breecker stated that he had not heard from Dunlap since filing his 19 motion to withdraw on July 11, 2012. Moreover, counsel has declared that Dunlap breached 20 his fee agreement by failing to deposit funds for costs. Breecker Decl. ¶ 4. The Court 21 therefore finds good cause to GRANT Breecker’s motion. See, e.g., Cal. Rules of Prof’l 22 Conduct 3-700(C)(1)(d) (allowing counsel to withdraw if the client “renders it unreasonably 23 difficult for [counsel] to carry out the employment effectively”) & 3-700(C)(1)(f) (allowing 24 withdrawal if the client “breaches an agreement or obligation to [counsel] as to expenses or 25 fees”). Because the Court remains uncertain whether Dunlap fully understands what it 26 means to proceed pro se, Breecker’s withdrawal is conditional, and papers shall “continue to 27 be served on counsel for forwarding purposes, unless and until the client appears by other 28 counsel or pro se.” Civ. L.R. 11-5(b). Dunlap may appear pro se only by filing a document 1 directly with the Court; the Court will not accept a document filed by Breecker as an 2 appearance by Dunlap. Breecker shall mail a copy of this order to Dunlap and file a proof of 3 service with the Court no later than August 31, 2012. 4 In addition, Dunlap is HEREBY ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why this case 5 should not be dismissed. If Dunlap does not file a written response to this order on or before 6 October 1, 2012, this case will be dismissed for failure to prosecute. If he needs assistance 7 on how to file a document with the Court, he may consult the Court’s website at 8 http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/proselitigants or contact the Legal Help Center, operated by 9 the Volunteer Legal Services Program of the Bar Association of San Francisco, at 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 (415) 782-9000, extension 8657. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 Dated: 08/27/12 15 THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?