Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00182/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00182-19/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

DONALD B. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-182-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR NEW COUNSEL AND GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO FILE A

SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION TO

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

(ECF No. 58)

SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION DUE

WITHIN TWENTY-EIGHT DAYS

Plaintiff Donald B. Williams (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding in this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

The action is proceeding against Defendants Enenmoh, Oneyeje, LeMay, Byers,

and Faria for inadequate medical care under the Eighth Amendment.

On July 18, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of new counsel. (ECF No.

58.) In his motion, Plaintiff complained of poor communication between him and his courtappointed attorney. (Id.) With consent of Defendants, the Court held a telephonic

conference with Plaintiff and his counsel, only, on August 29, 2012. (ECF No. 65.) 

Plaintiff’s concerns having been addressed, the existing attorney-client relationship will

continue at his request. 

The Court has further determined that it will best serve the interests of justice, and

not prejudice Defendants, to allow Plaintiff to supplement his opposition to Defendants’

motion to dismiss. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

-1-

Case 1:11-cv-00182-LJO-MJS Document 66 Filed 08/30/12 Page 1 of 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

1. Plaintiff’s motion for new counsel (ECF No. 58) is DENIED; and

2. Plaintiff is to file a supplemental opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss

within twenty-eight (28) days of entry of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 29, 2012 /s/Michael J. Seng 

ci4d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-

Case 1:11-cv-00182-LJO-MJS Document 66 Filed 08/30/12 Page 2 of 2