Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00215/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00215-10/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KELLI THOMAS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. )

)

RODERICK HICKMAN, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

 )

1:06-cv-00215-AWI-SMS

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

COUNSEL’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW ON

CONDITION THAT COUNSEL REPRESENT

DEFENDANT’S INTERESTS AT

PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION (DOC. 131)

ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK TO

UPDATE THE DOCKET

INFORMATIONAL ORDER TO DEFENDANT

LORAINE GOODWIN

Plaintiff is proceeding with a civil action in this Court.

The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302 and 72-303.

Pending before the Court is the motion of the office of the

Attorney General, California Department of Justice, and Helene E.

Swanson, Deputy Attorney General, to withdraw as counsel of

record for Defendant Loraine Goodwin.

On February 22, 2008, counsel for Defendant Loraine Goodwin

filed a motion to withdraw as attorney for Defendant Goodwin

(Defendant), including a notice of motion and motion, memorandum

of points and authorities, appendix of authorities, and

declaration of Helene E. Swanson with exhibits. A declaration of

Case 1:06-cv-00215-OWW -SMS Document 138 Filed 03/17/08 Page 1 of 6
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

Julio Hernandez regarding service of the notice of hearing and

motion on Defendant Goodwin was filed on February 28, 2008; on

March 11, 2008, another declaration of Hernandez was filed that

reflected that on February 27, 2008, the Attorney General’s

office received a return receipt indicating delivery to Defendant

Goodwin, but not reflecting a date of delivery. Notice of the

rescheduled hearing date was also served on Defendant. The motion

to withdraw was served electronically upon counsel for the

Plaintiff and for the other Defendants. Despite the passage of

the time for filing opposition or any other response, no party

has filed opposition or any form of response. By separate order

the Court has vacated the hearing on the motion.

I. Motion to Withdraw

The grounds of the motion are that the client has filed her

own motion to dismiss without the knowledge or consent of her

counsel and has failed to communicate or cooperate with counsel‘s

office in the defense of the case. 

Deputy Attorney General Helene Swanson declared that

Defendant had agreed on or about April 12, 2006, to have the

Attorney General represent her in this case, and the

representation had proceeded. On January 14, 2008, Swanson

learned via ECF notification from the Court that Defendant had

filed a motion to dismiss on her own behalf on January 11, 2008.

The Court notes that the motion reflects that Defendant proceeded

as “Loraine Goodwin, Attorney in Pro per.” (Mot. (Doc. 128) pp.

1, 11.)

Swanson declared that thereafter she wrote Defendant three

times, sending the letters to the address reflected in

Case 1:06-cv-00215-OWW -SMS Document 138 Filed 03/17/08 Page 2 of 6
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

Defendant’s recently filed motion to dismiss. Swanson also sought

to have Defendant execute a substitution of attorney form and

telephoned Defendant seven or eight times without reaching her;

Swanson left messages asking for a return call, but Defendant

failed to return any telephone calls. Defendant failed to

communicate with Swanson or anyone else in her office for over

two months; further, Defendant has not cooperated with her

defense in over two months. 

Local Rule 83-182(d) provides that an attorney who has

appeared may not withdraw leaving the client in propria persona

without leave of Court upon noticed motion and notice to the

client and all other parties who have appeared. Further, it

requires that the attorney provide an affidavit stating the

current or last known address or addresses of the client and the

efforts made to notify the client of the motion to withdraw.

Here, Defendant’s address and telephone numbers are stated in the

moving papers. 

Local Rule 83-182 further states that withdrawal of the

attorney is governed by the Rules of Professional Conduct of the

State Bar of California, and that the attorney shall conform to

the requirements of those Rules. 

Local Rule 83-182 provides that an attorney may request

withdrawal if grounds exist pursuant to the Rules of Professional

Conduct of the State Bar of California. Rule of Professional

Conduct 3-700(C)(1)(d) permits withdrawal if the client by his or

her conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for the member to

carry out the employment effectively; Rule 3-700(C)(6) permits

withdrawal if the member believes in good faith in a proceeding

Case 1:06-cv-00215-OWW -SMS Document 138 Filed 03/17/08 Page 3 of 6
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

4

pending before a tribunal that the tribunal will find he

existence of good cause for withdrawal. Rule 3-700(A) provides in

substance that a member must obtain permission to withdraw if

rules of a tribunal require it; a member shall not withdraw from

employment until the member has taken reasonable steps to avoid

reasonably foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the client,

including giving due notice to the client, allowing time for

employment of other counsel, promptly releasing papers and

property, and complying with applicable laws and rules.

Here, Swanson has demonstrated that Defendant has refused to

return telephone calls and has purported to file her own motion

to dismiss without counsel’s knowledge or consent; further,

Defendant has failed to communicate or cooperate. Swanson has

established a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship and

that continued employment has been rendered unreasonably

difficult; thus, grounds for withdrawal exist. Swanson has

notified the client of the instant motion by leaving a telephone

message and by serving the motion on her. 

Finally, Swanson has provided the address and telephone

number of the client. 

The discovery deadline is May 16, 2008; the deadline for

expert designation is June 18, 2008. The non-dispositive and

dispositive motion deadlines are in September and October 2008,

respectively, and trial is set for January 2009. It is reasonably

inferred that Defendant has been aware of the intention of

counsel to withdraw for almost two months; Defendant has had

ample time to seek counsel or otherwise to prepare to proceed

with the case. There is no indication that Defendant has

Case 1:06-cv-00215-OWW -SMS Document 138 Filed 03/17/08 Page 4 of 6
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

5

experienced any difficulty with locating other counsel or is

otherwise in need of time for preparation to proceed.

The Court notes that the deposition of Plaintiff is set for

March 18, 2008. Moving counsel states in her declaration that she

is willing to agree to reasonable conditions for withdrawal,

including an agreement to represent Defendant’s interests at

Plaintiff’s deposition set for March 18, 2008. Local Rule 83-

182(d) provides, “Leave to withdraw may be granted subject to

such appropriate conditions as the Court deems fit.” In view of

the short time between these motion proceedings and the scheduled

deposition of Plaintiff, withdrawal will be granted on the

condition that moving counsel appear and represent the interest

of Defendant Loraine Goodwin at the deposition of Plaintiff

scheduled to commence on March 18, 2008, unless Defendant Goodwin

herself appears at the deposition. 

Accordingly, the motion to withdraw as attorney for

Defendant Goodwin IS GRANTED on condition that the office of the

Attorney General of the State of California appear and represent

the interest of Defendant Loraine Goodwin at the deposition of

Plaintiff scheduled to commence on March 18, 2008, unless

Defendant Goodwin herself appears at the deposition.

II. Updating the Docket

Because the withdrawal of counsel results in Defendant

Goodwin’s proceeding pro se in this action, the Clerk of Court IS

DIRECTED TO UPDATE the docket to reflect Defendant’s pro se

status; her last known address of 1625 Howard Road Suite 277,

Madera, California 93637; and her last known telephone numbers of

(559) 674-5377, and (559) 974-2855 (cell).

Case 1:06-cv-00215-OWW -SMS Document 138 Filed 03/17/08 Page 5 of 6
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

6

//////

III. Informational Order to Defendant

Defendant IS INFORMED that failure to take appropriate legal

action may result in serious legal consequences, and

consideration of obtaining legal assistance is strongly advised.

Defendant IS ADVISED that regardless of whether or not

Defendant is represented by counsel, Defendant will be expected

to comply with all the requirements and deadlines stated in the

Court’s scheduling orders, including but not limited to its order

dated November 29, 2007. Further, Defendant must also comply with

the pertinent Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As a party

appearing in propria persona, Defendant is also required by Local

Rule 83-183(b) to notify the Clerk and all other parties of any

change of address or telephone number.

Defendant IS INFORMED that a failure to comply with an order

of the Court may result in a recommendation that the action be

dismissed or in other sanctions. Local Rule 11-110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 13, 2008 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00215-OWW -SMS Document 138 Filed 03/17/08 Page 6 of 6