Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01540/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01540-33/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHANNON WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHRISTOPHER BAKER and UNITED 

STATES,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:16-cv-01540-ADA-HBK (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

SUBSTITUTE COUNSEL OR TO PROCEED 

PRO SE1

(Doc. No. 141)

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Motion for Substitute Counsel or to Proceed Pro 

Se.” (Doc. No. 141, “Motion”). Plaintiff’s Counsel did not file a response. For the reasons set 

forth below, the undersigned denies Plaintiff’s Motion.

BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF MOTION

Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a pro se prisoner civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 1). On October 28, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Appointment of 

Counsel, in part because the Court directed him to file a brief on the applicability to this case of 

Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843, 1854 (2017), and Plaintiff was unable to access certain relevant 

legal documents due to his detention in the security housing unit (“SHU”). (Doc. No. 66). On 

February 7, 2020, the previously assigned magistrate judge found appointment of counsel to be 

1 This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 

(E.D. Cal. 2022). 

Case 1:16-cv-01540-DAD-HBK Document 145 Filed 11/03/23 Page 1 of 4
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

warranted for the limited purpose of addressing whether Plaintiff’s remaining Eighth Amendment 

allegations stated a claim upon which relief may be granted in light of Ziglar. (See Doc. No. 69). 

On March 4, 2020, the magistrate judge appointed Carter White and the UC Davis King Hall 

Civil Rights Clinic as Plaintiff’s counsel for the limited purpose of briefing on the proper 

application of Ziglar to this case. (Doc. No. 70 at 1-2 ¶ 1). The representation was ordered to 

conclude upon the Court issuing an order whether Plaintiff’s complaint stated a claim in light of 

Ziglar. (Id. at 2 ¶ 2). Upon issuing such an order, the previous magistrate directed Plaintiff’s 

counsel to file a notice indicating whether they wished to continue the representation. (Doc. No. 

82 at 16). Counsel subsequently filed a Notice indicating they intended to continue the 

representation. (Doc. No. 83).

On July 19, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion. (Doc. No. 141). In it, he asserts that 

his Counsel has failed to investigate important issues in his case, file motions requested by 

Plaintiff, depose certain witnesses, and respond to more than 20 of Plaintiff’s emails. (See

generally id.). These failures have caused a break down and loss of trust in the attorney-client 

relationship. (Id. at 11). Plaintiff’s counsel did not file any response.

APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS

Withdrawal of counsel is governed by the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar 

of California, and the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District 

of California. See L.R. 182; L.S. ex rel. R.S. v. Panama Buena Vista Union Sch. Dist., 2012 WL 

3236743, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2012).

The California Rules of Professional Conduct provide that if the rules of a court require 

permission for an attorney to withdraw, the attorney may not withdraw from employment in a 

proceeding without the permission of such court. Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 1.16(c). In addition, 

counsel must take reasonable steps to avoid prejudicing the rights of the client, including 

providing notice, allowing time for the client to employ other counsel, and complying with 

applicable laws and rules. Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 1.6(d). Mandatory withdrawal is required where 

the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the client “is bringing an action, conducting a 

defense, asserting a position in litigation, or taking an appeal, without probable cause and for the 

Case 1:16-cv-01540-DAD-HBK Document 145 Filed 11/03/23 Page 2 of 4
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

purpose of harassing or maliciously injuring any person;” “the representation will result in 

violation of these rules or of the State Bar Act;” “the lawyer’s mental or physical condition 

renders it unreasonably difficult to carry out the representation effectively; or the client 

discharges the lawyer.” Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 1.6(a). Grounds for permissive withdrawal exist 

when “the client by other conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to carry out the 

representation effectively.” Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 1.6(b)(4).

The Local Rules provide that an attorney who has appeared on behalf of a client may not 

withdraw, leaving the client in propria persona, without leave of court upon noticed motion, along 

with notice to the client and all other parties who have appeared. L.R. 182(d). The attorney is 

also required to “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.” Id. Likewise, 

California’s Rules of Court require notice of a motion to withdrawal to be served on the client and 

other parties who have appeared in the action. Cal. R. Court 3.1362(d).

Here, the Court has not received a Motion to Withdraw from Plaintiff’s counsel. Without 

such motion, filed in compliance with the applicable Local Rules and Rules of Court, the Court 

may not permit the withdrawal of Plaintiff’s counsel. Thus, to the extent Plaintiff wishes to 

discharge his Counsel and proceed pro se, he must direct his Counsel to file an appropriate 

motion. The Court will then evaluate the motion after considering the applicable factors, 

including (1) the reasons for withdrawal, (2) prejudice that may be caused to other litigants, (3) 

harm caused to the administration of justice, and (4) delay to the resolution of the case caused by 

withdrawal.” L.S. ex rel. R.S., 2012 WL 3236743, at *2 (citing Canandaigua Wine Co., Inc. v. 

Moldauer, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4238, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2009)); accord Kassab v. San 

Diego Police Dep’t, 2008 WL 251935, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2008). Additionally, “[l]eave to 

withdraw may be granted subject to such appropriate conditions as the Court deems fit.” L.R. 

182(d).

To the extent Plaintiff’s Motion seeks appointment of new Counsel, the Motion is denied

as premature and because Plaintiff has not made a showing of exceptional circumstances. A 

litigant does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights 

Case 1:16-cv-01540-DAD-HBK Document 145 Filed 11/03/23 Page 3 of 4
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

actions. Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(1), “[t]he court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford 

counsel.” The previous magistrate judge assigned counsel finding the exceptional circumstances 

presented by Plaintiff’s detention in the SHU and the new U.S. Supreme Court case law affecting 

Plaintiff’s case. (See Doc. No. 69); see also Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). 

Preliminarily, the Court does not find that Plaintiff’s disagreements with Counsel constitute 

exceptional circumstances to warrant appointment of new counsel.

If Plaintiff elects nevertheless to discharge his counsel and seek new counsel, the Court 

cautions Plaintiff that further appointment of counsel is not guaranteed, and indeed highly 

unlikely at this stage of the proceedings absent a new demonstration of exceptional 

circumstances. See Palmer, 560 F.3d at 970. If Plaintiff elects to discharge his Counsel, he may 

well be required to continue prosecuting this case without assistance of counsel. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

Plaintiff’s Motion for Substitute Counsel or to Proceed Pro Se (Doc. No. 141) is 

DENIED.

Dated: November 3, 2023 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01540-DAD-HBK Document 145 Filed 11/03/23 Page 4 of 4