Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-01189/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-01189-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

04cv1189

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LINDSAY JOHN MAX,

Plaintiff,

v.

WARDEN ROBERT J. HERNANDEZ et

al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 04cv1189-L(AJB)

ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE

APPLICATION TO WITHDRAW AS

COUNSEL OF RECORD

On September 7, 2007 counsel for Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Application to Withdraw as

Counsel of Record. Defendants did not oppose. Plaintiff was served with the application, but

has not responded. For the reasons which follow, the application to withdraw is GRANTED.

An attorney representing a client before a tribunal may not withdraw except by leave of

court. Darby v. City of Torrance, 810 F. Supp. 275, 276 (C.D. Cal. 1992); Cal. R. Prof. Conduct

3-700(A)(1). This court requires counsel to “comply with the standards of professional conduct

required of members of the State Bar of California, and decisions of any court applicable

thereto.” Civ. Loc. R. 83.4(b). 

Counsel maintains withdrawal is necessitated by a breakdown in the attorney-client

relationship due to disagreements regarding the best way to proceed and Plaintiff’s

/ / / / /

Case 3:04-cv-01189-MMA-AJB Document 137 Filed 10/11/07 Page 1 of 3
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

1 Under the State Bar of California Rules of Professional Conduct, attorneys are

bound to preserve client confidences when seeking withdrawal, if disclosing them would

prejudice the client or violate the counsel’s duty of confidentiality. See Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 3-

700(A)(2). In light of these limitations, counsel often is not able to discuss in detail the reasons

for withdrawal.

2 04cv1189

unwillingness to follow the counsel’s advice.1 The counsel argues this has rendered continued

representation unreasonably difficult, as provided in California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-

700(C)(1). Although this rule does not mandate withdrawal, it makes it permissive. However,

an attorney may not withdraw until he or she “has taken reasonable steps to avoid reasonably

foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the client . . ..” Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 3-100(A)(2).

Prior to requesting withdrawal, counsel wrote to Plaintiff about his intention to do so,

however, Plaintiff did not respond. Plaintiff also has not responded to the instant application. 

The counsel has also obtained extensions of pre-trial case management dates. (See Order

Granting the Parties’ Joint Motion to Continue Pre-trial Conference and Modify Scheduling

Order, filed Sept. 4, 2007.) Accordingly, the court finds counsel has taken reasonable steps to

avoid prejudice to Plaintiff’s prosecution of the case at least with respect to notice of intent to

withdraw and relief from approaching court deadlines.

The court is cognizant that the counsel became involved in this case upon request from

the San Diego Volunteer Lawyers Program, and it is doubtful whether Plaintiff, a state prisoner,

will be able to secure further representation. Initially, Plaintiff required assistance in stating a

cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and seeking a preliminary injunction. The gravamen of

his claim was that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”)

willfully failed to provide him with a suitable diet given his medical condition. Upon obtaining

counsel, Plaintiff was able to state a claim, defeat a motion to dismiss and file a motion for

preliminary injunction. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction was denied as moot

because the CDCR had transferred him to a correctional institution with hospital facilities and

changed his diet, which improved his symptoms. (See Order (1) Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for

Preliminary Injunction; and (2) Setting Status Conference, filed Jan. 10, 2006.) Plaintiff

continues to claim frequent retaliation by CDCR personnel and inadequate medical treatment. 

Case 3:04-cv-01189-MMA-AJB Document 137 Filed 10/11/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3 04cv1189

Given the improvement in the conditions of Plaintiff’s confinement and his symptoms, the court

finds Plaintiff will not be unduly prejudiced if he has to proceed pro se. Numerous state

prisoners represent themselves in section 1983 actions in this court. 

Having reviewed the application and the supporting declaration of counsel, the court finds

good cause exists to grant the application. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED as follows:

1. Ex Parte Application to Withdraw as Counsel of Record is GRANTED. Plaintiff is

hereby substituted in propria persona. 

2. Clerk of Court shall provide a copy of this order to Plaintiff at the following address: 

Lindsay John Max (T-25849) c/o California Medical Facility, 1600 California Drive, P.O. Box

2500, Vacaville, CA 95696-2500. This address shall be used for service unless a notice of a

different address is filed by Plaintiff.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 11, 2007

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. ANTHONY J. BATTAGLIA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:04-cv-01189-MMA-AJB Document 137 Filed 10/11/07 Page 3 of 3