Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01636/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01636-13/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES W. WINDHAM,

 Plaintiff,

v.

M. MARIN, et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:14-cv-01636-DAD-BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST TO DECLARE GLARING 

CONFLICT OF INTEREST BETWEEN ALL 

DEFENDANTS AND THE CALIF. 

ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE & FOR 

COURT TO ORDER NEW SEPARATE 

COUNSELS FOR EACH DEFENDANT

(ECF No. 36)

Plaintiff Charles W. Windham (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this 

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth 

Amendment claims of excessive force against Defendants M. Marin, D. Uribe, W. Rasley, J. 

Contreras, A. Capano, R. Rubio, and Doe #1, and for deliberate indifference to serious medical 

needs against Defendants C. Navarro, V. Morales, M. Marin, and S. Shiver. 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s request to declare a conflict of interest between 

Defendants and their counsel and to order each Defendant to be represented by a different 

attorney. (ECF No. 36). In the motion, Plaintiff argues that the joint representation of all 

Defendants by the same Deputy Attorney General is a conflict of interest, because the

Defendants may have different defenses that require presenting arguments or evidence against 

Case 1:14-cv-01636-DAD-BAM Document 58 Filed 12/23/15 Page 1 of 3
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

each other. Plaintiff asserts that only one Defendant should be represented by the Deputy 

Attorney General of record, and that each other Defendant should be ordered to obtain separate 

and new counsel. 

The Court advises Plaintiff that the Attorney General has a duty to represent any state 

officer or agency. See, e.g., Cal. Gov’t Code § 12511 (“The Attorney General has charge, as 

attorney, of all legal matters in which the State is interested . . . .”); id. § 12512 (“The Attorney 

General shall . . . prosecute or defend all causes to which the State, or any State officer is a party 

in his or her official capacity.”). The Attorney General also has a duty to represent the public 

interest. See D’Amico v. Bd. of Med. Examiners, 11 Cal.3d 1, 15, 112 Cal.Rptr. 786, 520 P.2d 

10 (1974). In D'Amico, the California Supreme Court explained:

In the course of discharging this duty [to defend all cases in which 

the state or one of its officers is a party] he is often called upon to 

make legal determinations both in his capacity as a representative 

of the public interest and as statutory counsel for the state or one of 

its agencies or officers. In the great majority of such cases no 

conflict will result because in representing the interest of his 

‘client’ the Attorney General will take a position consistent with 

what he deems to be in the public interest. In the exceptional case 

the Attorney General, recognizing that his paramount duty to 

represent the public interest cannot be discharged without conflict, 

may consent to the employment of special counsel by a state 

agency or officer. However, unless the Attorney General asserts 

the existence of such a conflict, it must be concluded that the 

actions and determinations of the Attorney General in such a 

lawsuit are made both as a representative of the public interest and 

as counsel for the state agency or officer.

Id.

In this case, the Attorney General has not indicated the existence of any conflict of 

interest. In addition, the Court finds that this case does not present the “exceptional case” where 

the Attorney General faces a conflict of interest. Based upon the fact that the Defendants filed a 

joint motion for summary judgment, for example, it appears their interests and defenses are 

aligned. 

///

///

Case 1:14-cv-01636-DAD-BAM Document 58 Filed 12/23/15 Page 2 of 3
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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for the Court to declare 

a conflict of interest and order that Defendants each obtain separate counsel (ECF No. 36) is 

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 23, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01636-DAD-BAM Document 58 Filed 12/23/15 Page 3 of 3