Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01739/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01739-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARRETT CASE,

Plaintiff,

v.

RAYTHEL FISHER, JR., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01739-ADA-BAM

ORDER DENYING PROPOSED 

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY (Doc. 51)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE (Doc. 

52)

Currently pending before the Court are a proposed substitution of attorney filed by 

Plaintiff Garrett Case and his counsel on May 20, 2023, along with a motion for appointment of 

counsel filed by Plaintiff Garrett Case on August 25, 2023. (Doc. No. 51 and 52.) For the 

reasons that follow, the proposed substitution of attorney will be denied and Plaintiff’s motion for 

appointment of counsel will be denied without prejudice.

I. Proposed Substitution of Attorney

On September 13, 2022, the parties filed a joint status report. (Doc. 48.) According to the 

report, Plaintiff’s counsel intended to withdraw from the case due to a change in counsel’s 

circumstances. Plaintiff, through counsel, was seeking additional time to respond to the pending 

motion for summary judgment in order to locate substitute counsel. Plaintiff therefore requested 

Case 1:19-cv-01739-KES-BAM Document 53 Filed 08/31/23 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 

2

a status conference with the district court. (Id.) 

On March 29, 2023, the district court held a status conference with the parties. (Doc. 50.) 

Plaintiff’s counsel informed the Court that he would be filing a Notice of Withdrawal of Counsel 

and that the Plaintiff was seeking new counsel. (Id.) 

Following the conference, on May 20, 2023, Plaintiff and his counsel filed a proposed 

substitution of attorney. (Doc. 51.) The proposed substitution does not comply with Local Rule 

182 because Plaintiff seeks to represent himself in this matter pro se and is not seeking to 

substitute his attorney with new counsel. L.R. 182(g) (“An attorney who has appeared in an 

action may substitute another attorney and thereby withdraw from the action by submitting a 

substitution of attorneys . . .”). Plaintiff’s counsel may not withdraw leaving the client in propria 

persona without leave of court upon noticed motion, notice to the client and all other parties who 

have appeared, and an attorney affidavit pursuant to Local Rule 182(d). Therefore, the Court will 

deny the proposed substitution of attorney. To the extent Plaintiff’s counsel seeks to withdraw as 

attorney of record, counsel shall comply with Local Rule 182. Accordingly, the authority and 

duty of the attorney of record shall continue until relieved by order of the court. L.R. 182(d).

II. Plaintiff’s Motion for Appoint of Counsel

On August 25, 2023, Plaintiff personally filed a motion for an appointment of counsel. 

(Doc. 52.) Although Plaintiff reportedly has been attempting to secure new counsel without 

success, he remains represented by counsel of record, Jeffrey Katz of Kesher Law Group, unless 

and until the Court orders otherwise. L.R. 182(d). He therefore is not authorized to file 

documents on his own behalf. Filings must include the signature of at least one attorney of record 

when a party is represented. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a); see also Local Rule 131 (“All pleadings and 

non-evidentiary documents shall be signed by the individual attorney for the party presenting 

them . . . .”). Accordingly, the motion for appointment of counsel will be denied without 

prejudice. Plaintiff is advised that any future filings submitted by a party who is represented by 

counsel will not be docketed. 

///

///

Case 1:19-cv-01739-KES-BAM Document 53 Filed 08/31/23 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

III. Conclusion and Order

Based on the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. The proposed substation of attorney (Doc. 51) is DENIED; 

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED without prejudice; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve Plaintiff Garrett Case by mail with a copy 

of this order at the following address: California Health Care Facility – STOCKTON, 

7707 Austin Road, Stockton, CA 95215. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 31, 2023 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01739-KES-BAM Document 53 Filed 08/31/23 Page 3 of 3