Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01524/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01524-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

John Doneld Womack, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

GEO Group Incorporated,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-12-1524-PHX-SRB (LOA)

ORDER

 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s “Motion Not to Allow Change of Attorney

for Defendant GEO” and Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s “Motion Not to Allow

Change of Attorney for Defendant GEO.” (Docs. 73, 74) Plaintiff has filed a Response to

Defendant’s Motion to Strike. (Doc. 76)

Plaintiff requests in his motion that Defendant’s previous attorney of record, Scott A.

Alles, not be permitted to withdraw from further representation because he has not sought the

Court’s or Plaintiff’s Consent. Plaintiff further contends there are ongoing discovery disputes

involving attorney Scott A. Alles.

Civil Rule of Practice for the District Court of Arizona (“Local Rule” or “LRCiv”)

83.3(b)(4) permits a private law firm that has appeared as counsel of record to substitute an

attorney who is a member of that firm by simply filing a notice with the Court. The notice must

provide the names of the attorneys who are the subjects of the substitution along with the

current address and e-mail address of the attorney substituting. LRCiv 83.3(b)(4).

Here, Defendant filed a Notice of Change of Attorney Within Firm on September 18,

Case 2:12-cv-01524-SRB Document 87 Filed 11/18/13 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 The Court notes that Defendant’s Notice of Change of Attorney Within Firm was not

properly filed in text-searchable format per LRCiv 7.1(c), 5.5(b), and definition of “.pdf,” in

the District Court’s ECF Manual, at I(A), p. 4. Future filings by Defendant that does not comply

with the Local Rules and the District Court’s ECF Manual may be stricken and progressive

sanctions imposed to obtain compliance.

- 2 -

2013. (Doc. 69) The Notice indicates that Attorney Pari K. Scroggin is replacing Attorney

Scott A. Alles as counsel for Defendant in this case. Both attorneys are with the Scottsdale law

firm of Manning & Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester, LLP. The Notice further provides Attorney

Scroggin’s current mailing and e-mail addresses. 

Moreover, as a general rule, “doctrine of standing prohibits a litigant from raising

another’s legal rights.” FMC Technologies, Inc. v. Edwards, 420 F.Supp.2d 1153, 1156 (W.D.

Wash. 2006) (citing, inter alia, Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 750–51 (1984)). “[O]nly a

current or former client of an attorney has standing to complain of that attorney’s representation

of interests adverse to that current or former client.” Id. (quoting Colyer v. Smith, 50 F.Supp.2d

966, 969 (C.D.Cal. 1999)). Because there is no evidence that Attorney Pari K. Scroggin has

previously represented Plaintiff, Plaintiff lacks standing to object to Defendant’s substitution

of counsel.

The Court finds the Notice complies with LRCiv 83.3(b)(4). As a result, the substitution

is allowed.1

 Plaintiff’s motion to prohibit the substitution will be denied.

Regarding the motion to strike, because the Court is denying Plaintiff’s motion, the

motion to strike is moot and will be denied as such.

Accordingly,

 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion Not to Allow Change of Attorney for

Defendant GEO,” doc. 73, is DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s “Motion

Not to Allow Change of Attorney for Defendant GEO,” doc. 74, is DENIED as moot.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel and any unrepresented party must comply

with the Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the District of Arizona (“Local

Rules”), as amended on December 1, 2012. The District’s Local Rules may be found on the

Case 2:12-cv-01524-SRB Document 87 Filed 11/18/13 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 -

District Court’s internet web page at www.azd.uscourts.gov/. All other rules may be found at

www.uscourts.gov/rules/. The fact that a party is acting pro se does not discharge a party’s

duties to “abide by the rules of the court in which he litigates.” Carter v. Commissioner of

Internal Revenue, 784 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1986). 

DATED this 18th day of November, 2013.

Case 2:12-cv-01524-SRB Document 87 Filed 11/18/13 Page 3 of 3