Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01144/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01144-11/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KELLY WILSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-cv-01144-AWI-SMS PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO DISQUALIFY DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL

(Doc. 26)

Plaintiff Kelly Wilson (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on plaintiff’s

complaint filed September 8, 2005, against defendants Terhune, Adams, Castillo, N. Nguyen, K.

Nguyen, Pak, and Shedler for allegedly violating plaintiff’s rights under the Eighth Amendment of

the Constitution by failing to provide plaintiff with medical treatment. Defendants Terhune, Adams,

N. Nguyen, and K. Nguyen (“defendants”) waived service ofsummons and answered the complaint.

The United States Marshal is still attempting service of process on the other defendants. 

On December 13, 2006, prior to the time defendants made an appearance in this action but

after theywaived service, plaintiff filed a motion seeking to disqualify the Attorney General’s Office

for the State of California from representing the defendants. Plaintiff asserts that there exists a

conflict of interest because the Attorney General’s Office has a duty to all citizens of California,

including prisoners. 

///

Case 1:05-cv-01144-LJO -SMS Document 37 Filed 01/22/07 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

Generally, “‘courts do not disqualify an attorney on the grounds of conflict of interest unless

the former client moves for disqualification.’” Kasza v. Browner, 133 F.3d 1159, 1171 (9th Cir.

1998) (quoting United States v. Rogers, 9 F.3d 1025, 1031 (2d Cir. 1993) (internal quotations

omitted)). Assuming for the sake of argument that plaintiff has standing to bring the instant motion,

plaintiff’s challenge amounts to nothing more than a vague, general argument that the State should

not be representing prison guards because prisoners are citizens of California, too. Plaintiff has not

identified any conflict of interest relating to the representation of defendants by Deputy Attorney

General Andreas O. Garza.

Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify defendants’ counsel, filed December 13, 2006, is HEREBY

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 19, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01144-LJO -SMS Document 37 Filed 01/22/07 Page 2 of 2