Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_79-cv-01630/USCOURTS-cand-3_79-cv-01630-68/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREW LANCASTER, JEFFERY MILLS,

DEXTER WILLIAMS, WILLIAM DENNIS,

STEVE LIVADITIS, JIMMY VAN PELT,

H. LEE HEISHMAN III AND JOHNATON

GEORGE,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

JAMES E. TILTON, Acting Secretary,

California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation, and ROBERT L. AYERS, JR.,

Acting Warden, San Quentin State Prison,

Defendants. /

No. C 79-01630 WHA

ORDER DENYING REQUEST OF

INMATE VAN PELT FOR NEW

COUNSEL

Inmate Jimmy Van Pelt requests, in light of the recent December 21 order, that class

counsel be substituted because of counsel’s “inept strategies and tactics in defending and

prosecuting this case.” If this request is not granted, he requests that he be granted intervention

and appointment of new counsel to protect his personal interests (Dkt. 1336).

It is important that the class be represented by competent counsel that diligently protects

the interests of the class. It is also true that the December 21 order found that class counsel had

ample and repeated opportunities to inquire into prison conditions. In fact, the Court found that

class counsel had invested hundreds of hours in inquiring into prison conditions. Class counsel

is therefore in a position to competently and capably represent the class with respect to any

factual issues involved. While it is further true that class counsel stubbornly claimed it needed

Case 3:79-cv-01630-WHA Document 1356 Filed 01/04/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

yet further opportunities for discovery and investigation and made a studied attempt to avoid

briefing the issue on the merits, the Court nonetheless reviewed the voluminous record already

assembled and only ruled on those issues where it was clear that no further evidence gathering

was needed. The Court is convinced that even the best of counsel could not have achieved a

different outcome from the December 21 order. Class counsel are capable of adequately

representing the class. Inmate Van Pelt’s request for new counsel or, in the alternative, to

intervene is therefore DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2008. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:79-cv-01630-WHA Document 1356 Filed 01/04/08 Page 2 of 2