Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00011/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00011-15/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT MAESHACK,

Plaintiff,

v.

AVENAL STATE PRISON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:06-cv-00011-AWI-GSA- PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO DISQUALIFY DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL

(Doc. 32.)

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Robert Maeshack (“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 amended complaint filed March 16, 2007, against defendantsHarbinson, McIntyre, Weed,

and Sweetland, on plaintiff’s medical care claims under the Eighth Amendment and state medical

malpractice claims. (Doc. 17.) Defendants Harbinson and McIntyre are represented by Deputy 1

Attorney General Megan R. O’Carroll, Department of Justice. Defendant Weed is represented by

separate counsel. Defendant Sweetland has not been served in this action.2

///

All other claims and defendants were dismissed by the court on January 13, 2009. (Doc. 25.)

1

On June 17, 2009, the United States Marshal filed a return of service unexecuted as to defendant

2

Sweetland. (Doc. 48.)

1

Case 1:06-cv-00011-AWI-GSA Document 60 Filed 02/11/10 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

On April 8, 2009, plaintiff filed a motion seeking to disqualify the Attorney General for the

State of California (“A.G.”) from acting as counsel for defendants in this action. (Doc. 32.) 

Defendants have not filed a response. 

II. MOTION TO DISQUALIFY ATTORNEY GENERAL

Plaintiff brings a motion to disqualify the A.G., based on conflict of interest.

First, Plaintiff argues that a conflict of interest exists because he requested the assistance of

the A. G. before the defendants sought counsel in this action. Plaintiff alleges he sent his proposed

theory of prosecution of this action, along with copies of evidence to be used against the defendants,

to the A. G.’s Office. Plaintiff claims the A. G. kept the documents and sent him a letter on October

29, 2008, advising him the A. G. is not suited to represent individuals. On March 23, 2009, plaintiff

was notified that the A.G. would be representing defendant Harbison. (Motion at 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)). Plaintiff does not claim to be a former client of the A. G. and in fact states that the A. G.

declined to represent him. (Motion at 2.) The fact that plaintiff sent case information unsolicited to

the Attorney General’s Office, without more, is not evidence that an attorney-client privilege exists

between plaintiff and the A. G. Without evidence of an agreement, a consultation, a fee payment,

or any legal advice rendered, the court cannot reasonably find that a confidential relationship arose

between plaintiff and the A.G. Plaintiff provides no evidence that Deputy A. G. Megan R.

O’Carroll, who is representing defendants in this action, has any knowledge of the documents. 

Therefore, the court finds no conflict of interest based on the fact that plaintiff sent his case

information to the A.G.’s Office.

Second, Plaintiff argues that the A.G. should not represent defendants because the People of

the State of California have no interest in defending this lawsuit, because none of the defendants

remaining in this action is a sworn officer or agency of the state and the People are not at risk. 

Plaintiff notes that Avenal State Prison and all the sworn officers named as defendants in the original

complaint have been removed from the lawsuit. 

2

Case 1:06-cv-00011-AWI-GSA Document 60 Filed 02/11/10 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

“The Attorney General, . . ., is the chief law officer of the state (Cal. Const., art. V, § 13)

[and] . . . possesses not only extensive statutory powers but also broad powers derived from the

common law relative to the protection of the public interest” and matters of public concern.

California Air Resources Bd. v. Hart, 21 Cal.App.4th 289, 295, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 153, 156 (Cal. 1993)

(quoting D’Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners, 11 Cal.3d 1, 14-15, 112 Cal.Rptr. 786, 796, 520

P.2d 10, 20 (Cal. 1974.)) “‘[I]n the absence of any legislative restriction, [he] has the power to file

any civil action or proceeding directly involving the rights and interests of the state, or which he

deems necessary for the enforcement of the laws of the state, the preservation of order, and the

protection of public rights and interest.’” Id. Conversely, [the A. G.] “has the duty to defend all

cases in which the state or one of its officers is a party.” Cal.Gov.Code § 12512; California Air

Resources Bd., 21 Cal.App.4th at 295. 

Plaintiff acknowledges that defendants Harbison, McIntyre, Weed, and Sweetland are

employed as medical staff at Avenal State Prison (“ASP”) and Sierra Conservation Center (“SCC”),

(Amd. Cmp., Doc. 17, at ¶III.). ASP and SCC are state prisons under the authority of the California

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, a state agency. Therefore, the court finds it proper

for the A. G. to represent the defendants in this action as part of his or her broad powers involving

the rights and interests of the state.

Finally, plaintiff argues that the A.G. should be disqualified because the A.G. represents the

People of the State of California, and Plaintiff is a ward of the State of California. 

“In the course of discharging his duty [the Attorney General] 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.” D’Amico, 11 Cal.3d at 15. If the A.G.

recognizes a conflict between these two duties, he or she may consent to the employment of special

counsel by a state agency or officer. (See Cal.Gov.Code § 11040.)” Id. However, the court finds

no authority that the A. G. has a duty to represent the interests of a prisoner in state custody who

brings an action against defendants who were acting under color of state law. Therefore, the court

finds no conflict of interest based on plaintiff’s status as a state prisoner.

///

3

Case 1:06-cv-00011-AWI-GSA Document 60 Filed 02/11/10 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

III. CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify

defendants’ counsel, filed April 8, 2009, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 11, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 1:06-cv-00011-AWI-GSA Document 60 Filed 02/11/10 Page 4 of 4