Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00985/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00985-5/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

 Counsel requested that this matter be submitted to a different judicial officer than the judges presiding in 1

this case. At the hearing, Judge Beck explained that because of his familiarity with the facts at issue, it would be

most efficient for him to hear the motion and then reassign the action to another magistrate judge. 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID CORSER, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

COUNTY OF MERCED, et al., )

)

)

)

)

Defendants. )

)

 )

1:05cv0985 OWW DLB

ORDER GRANTING COUNSEL’S

MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS 

ATTORNEY OF RECORD

(Documents 43-1, 46)

ORDER SETTING FURTHER 

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

August 17, 2006

8:45 A.M., Courtroom 3

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO

ANOTHER MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Old case number: 1:05cv0985 OWW DLB

New case number: 1:05cv0985 OWW LJO

Patience Milrod (“Counsel”), attorney for Plaintiff David Corser (“Plaintiff”), filed the

instant motion to withdraw as Plaintiff’s attorney of record on May 9, 2006. The matter was

heard on June 23, 2006, before the Honorable Dennis L. Beck, United States Magistrate Judge.1

Counsel and Plaintiff appeared. Pursuant to the Court’s order, the hearing was closed to

Defendants. 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed the instant civil rights action on July 29, 2005, against the County of

Merced, Merced County Board of Supervisors member Gloria Cortez-Keene, Merced County

Executive Officer Demetrios Tatum, several deputies and employees of the Merced County

Case 1:05-cv-00985-OWW -GSA Document 57 Filed 06/29/06 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 The Court has not ruled upon the Motion to Dismiss. Upon the granting of Counsel’s motion to 2

withdraw, Plaintiff shall assume responsibility for the motion. 

2

Sheriff’s Department, and Planada Municipal Advisory Council/Planada Community

Development Corporation members Larry Gonzales, Maria Socorro Gonzales, and Ruth Stone. 

Plaintiff alleges federal civil rights causes of action for a warrantless arrest, retaliation for

expressing speech protected under the First and Fourteenth Amendment, and conspiracy to

violate his civil rights. He also alleges supplemental state law claims for assault, battery, and use

of excessive force in affecting an arrest, false arrest and false imprisonment, violation of Civil

Code section 52.1(b), and negligent training and supervision. The allegations arise out of a

political dispute between Plaintiff and Defendants concerning urban expansion in the Planada

area. 

All Defendants have answered the complaint. 

Pursuant to the Court’s February 26, 2006, Scheduling Conference Order, the parties

deferred setting a discovery plan while they attempted to settle the action. A settlement

conference was set for March 30, 2006, and the parties were directed to advise the Court of the

outcome and set a further scheduling conference, if necessary. 

On March 30, 2006, the parties appeared for a settlement conference before the

Honorable Dennis L. Beck, but did not reach a settlement. 

Counsel filed the instant motion to withdraw as attorney of record on May 9, 2006. 

Pursuant to the Court’s order granting Plaintiff’s request, Plaintiff’s opposition and Counsel’s

reply, filed on May 25, 2006, and June 19, 2006, respectively, were filed under seal. 

On June 19, 2006, Plaintiff, through Counsel, filed a notice of dismissal of Defendant

Deputy L. Miller without prejudice.2

DISCUSSION

Local Rule 83-182(d) provides:

Subject to the provisions of subsection (c), 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 persons who have appeared. 

The attorney shall provide an affidavit stating the current or last known address of

addresses of the client and the efforts made to notify the client of the motion to

Case 1:05-cv-00985-OWW -GSA Document 57 Filed 06/29/06 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

withdraw. Withdrawal as attorney is governed by the Rules of Professional

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

requirements of those Rules. The authority and duty of the attorney of record

shall continue until relieved by order of the Court issued hereunder. Leave to

withdraw may be granted subject to such appropriate conditions as the Court

deems fit.

Where withdrawal from a case is not mandatory under the Rules of Professional conduct,

an attorney must ordinarily continue representation despite a case becoming unpleasant or

unprofitable. 

Counsel’s primary reason in moving to withdraw is that she believes that there has been

an irremediable breakdown in communication between her and Plaintiff such that the attorneyclient relationship is no longer viable. Counsel moves for permissive withdrawal pursuant to

Rule 3-700(C)(1)(d) of the California Rules of Professional Conduct, which permits withdrawal

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

the employment effectively.” 

Counsel contends that Plaintiff took inconsistent and rationally indefensible positions at

the settlement conference about his reasons for refusing settlement, demonstrating his bad faith

participation in the settlement process and his unwillingness to accept Counsel’s word about the

realities of litigation. At the hearing, Counsel explained that Plaintiff’s behavior at the

settlement conference was the culmination of his prior behavior.

The undersigned conducted the settlement conference and therefore witnessed Counsel

and Plaintiff’s interaction about which Counsel complains. The undersigned also witnessed the

interaction at the hearing on this motion, and it is readily apparent that there has been a break

down in the attorney-client relationship such that it will be an impediment to proper

representation.

Plaintiff’s position on Counsel’s request is very inconsistent. Plaintiff believes that

Counsel is moving to withdraw from this action to avoid a conflict in another representation, a

representation which Plaintiff believes to be more advantageous to Counsel than this action. 

Counsel admits that she represents Defendant L. Miller (now known to be Laurice WilloughbyMiller) in another action before this Court, but contends that since she is not a proper party to

Case 1:05-cv-00985-OWW -GSA Document 57 Filed 06/29/06 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

this action and should be dismissed, there is no conflict. While the Court has not determined

whether a conflict exists, it is difficult to understand why Plaintiff would want Counsel to

continue to represent him where he contends there is a conflict of interest and believes Counsel is

acting contrary to his best interests.

In any event, Counsel’s motion is GRANTED for the above reasons. Plaintiff shall be

substituted in pro se. Plaintiff’s last known mailing address is P.O. Box 493, Planada,

California, 95365. His telephone number is 209-382-0668.

A further scheduling conference is set before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger on August

17, 2006, at 8:45 a.m. in Courtroom 3.

Finally, good cause appearing, the undersigned disqualifies himself from all

proceedings in the present action. The Clerk of the Court has reassigned this action to the

docket of a different Magistrate Judge. The new case number shall be 1:05cv0985

OWW LJO. All future pleadings shall be so numbered. Failure to use the correct case

number may result in delay in your documents being received by the correct judicial

officer.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 28, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00985-OWW -GSA Document 57 Filed 06/29/06 Page 4 of 4