Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05864/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05864-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARMANDO RUIZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

MAJOR CRIMES TASK FORCE, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 03-5864 MJJ

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel. On August 2, 2005,

Plaintiffs’ counsel, L. Scott Spears, filed a declaration in support of his motion in which all but one

(Neyrot Zuniga Gonzales) of his clients indicate his or her consent to the proposed withdrawal. 

Plaintiffs’ counsel also submitted his own declaration representing to the Court that Plaintiff

Armando Ruiz “shall represent Plaintiffs In Pro Per on behalf of all Plaintiffs, with the exception of

Neyrot Zuniga Gonzales,” who, according to Mr. Spears, no longer wishes to be a plaintiff in this

action. (Declaration of L. Scott Spears, ¶¶ 3–4.) 

First, the Court finds that Plaintiff Armando Ruiz cannot represent the other Plaintiffs in this

action. He is not admitted to the practice of law and pro se litigants cannot represent anyone but

themselves. C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 828 F. 2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987). Thus, the

Court finds that Plaintiffs’ counsel’s proposed withdrawal is not accompanied by a valid agreement

of his clients to appear pro se. The proposed withdrawal is also not accompanied by a simultaneous 

Case 3:03-cv-05864-MJJ Document 86 Filed 08/02/05 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

appearance of substitute counsel. In such circumstances, Civil Local Rule 11-5(b) requires that

leave to withdraw is “subject to the condition that papers may continue to be served on counsel for

forwarding purposes . . . unless and until the client appears by other counsel or pro se.” Moreover,

the withdrawing counsel must notify his clients of this condition and any filed consent to his

withdrawal under these circumstances must include acknowledgment of this condition. CIVIL L.R.

11-5(b). Here, the declaration indicating Mr. Spears’ clients’ consent to the withdrawal does not

contain an acknowledgment of this condition and is, thus, deficient. Counsel is hereby ORDERED

to submit a supplemental declaration satisfying this requirement.

Second, Plaintiffs’ counsel is hereby ORDERED to provide additional factual detail

regarding Plaintiff Neyrot Zuniga Gonzales’ position on counsel’s motion to withdraw. Counsel’s

representation that Gonzales has indicated that he “no longer wishes to act as a Plaintiff in this

litigation” is insufficient to explain why the Court should grant counsel’s motion to withdraw absent

his written consent. In the event that Mr. Gonzales’ consent cannot be obtained, counsel must

submit a brief, no more than three pages in length, by August 10, 2005, explaining why his motion

should be granted despite his failure to obtain consent to the withdrawal from all clients.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August__2__, 2005 _______________________________

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:03-cv-05864-MJJ Document 86 Filed 08/02/05 Page 2 of 2