Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_96-cv-05576/USCOURTS-caed-1_96-cv-05576-15/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RECUSE

REX CHAPPELL, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. )

)

T. J. DICKERSON, )

)

Defendant. )

____________________________________)

1: 96-CV-5576 AWI DLB P

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

DECLARE A CONFLICT OF

INTEREST IN HAVING THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL

REPRESENT DEFENDANT

[Document #141]

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and has filed a civil rights complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On January 9, 2008, Plaintiff filed a motion to have the court declare a conflict of interest

in having the California Attorney General represent Defendant. In this motion, Plaintiff claims

that Defendant’s attorney, the California Attorney General, has made improper arguments in this

case. Given the Attorney General’s position as a public entity, Plaintiff claims the Attorney

General cannot make these arguments.

Plaintiff fails to set forth the legal basis of his motion. In general, an attorney admitted

to practice before the court may not engage in any conduct which degrades or impugns the

integrity of the court or interferes with the administration of justice. See In re Coordinated

Pretrial Proceedings in Petroleum Products Antitrust Litigation, 658 F.2d 1355, 1360 (9 Cir. th

1981). The court must find a conflict of interest if an attorney represents a client and that

representation may be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client, a third

Case 1:96-cv-05576-AWI -DLB Document 163 Filed 02/13/08 Page 1 of 2
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

person, or the attorney’s own interests. See Abbott v. U.S. I.R.S., 399 F.3d 1083, 1085 (9 Cir. th

2005); Image Technical Service, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 136 F.3d 1354, 1358 (9 Cir. th

1998). In addition, an attorney who “so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably

and vexatiously may be required by the court to satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses, and

attorneys' fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct.” 28 U.S.C. § 1927. Under Rule

11of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure an award of sanctions is required if a frivolous paper

is filed. Price v. State of Hawaii, 939 F.2d 702, 709 (9 Cir. 1991). The court also has the th

inherent authority to issue sanctions.

The basis of Plaintiff’s motion is that Defendant’s attorney took certain positions in the

motion for summary judgment that the court ultimately rejected. Plaintiff contends that because

the Attorney General must uphold the law, Defendant’s attorney’s contentions regarding

qualified immunity show the Attorney General is unwilling to uphold the law. The court does

not find Plaintiff’s argument is grounds to disqualify the Attorney General. Qualified immunity

shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages

unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

reasonable person would have known. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987). The

court in this action did not agree with Defendant that summary judgment could be granted on

qualified immunity grounds based on the undisputed facts and viewing the disputed facts in

Plaintiff’s favor. However, because qualified immunity is a valid defense, the court cannot find

that the Attorney General’s decision to make such an argument in the motion for summary

judgment degrades or impugns the integrity of the court or interferes with the administration of

justice such that the court must find a conflict of interest. 

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that Plaintiff’s motion to declare a conflict of interest is

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 11, 2008 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:96-cv-05576-AWI -DLB Document 163 Filed 02/13/08 Page 2 of 2