Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-02250/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-02250-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 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

ZACHERY DUFFY,

Plaintiff,

v

SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT

et al,

Defendants. /

No C-02-2250 VRW

ORDER

On March 1, 2006, the court issued an order granting

defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment and remanding

whatever state law claims remain to San Francisco county superior

court. Doc #83. The defendants’ motion was unopposed because

plaintiff’s attorney, Stanley G Hilton, neglected to file an

opposition. Id at 2. The court denied Hilton’s request for an

extension to file an opposition because of Hilton’s repeated

failure to file papers on time or timely request an extension in

this case and in another case before the court. Id at 3-4.

In contemplating whether Hilton’s actions warranted the

attention of the court’s committee on professional conduct, the

court discovered that no one by the name of Stanley G Hilton was

listed in the court’s attorney roll as a member of the bar of this

Case 3:02-cv-02250-VRW Document 89 Filed 04/12/06 Page 1 of 4
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

court. Id at 6. Accordingly, Hilton was ordered to show cause

either (1) that he is a member of the bar of this court or (2) if

he is not a member, why he should not be sanctioned and found in

contempt of court. Id at 7.

Rather than provide a unified response, Hilton submitted

two letters and three responses to the court’s order; only two of

these submissions were filed electronically. Doc ##84-87. Hilton

explained that he had been admitted to practice before this court

under the name “Stanley Goumas” and that he had changed his name in

1977 to “Stanley Hilton” without notifying the court. Doc ##84-87. 

Hilton stated that he had spoken with the court clerk and that the

court’s record would be changed to reflect his current name. Doc

#86. Needless to say, changing the name under which one carries on

a licensed professional practice without proper notice is

problematic, at best.

Putting this problem aside, the court remains concerned

that Hilton failed to perform legal services competently in this

case. This concern is further amplified by Hilton’s response, in

which he states, “as the court concluded [in its previous order]

there were no ‘Monell’ racial policies by the city police in this

case, it appears that an opposition to the motion for summary

adjudication would have been futile, and that a statement of nonopposition in effect was called for.” Doc #84 at 2 (original,

inexplicably, in all caps). Combined with Hilton’s earlier

inaction, this statement suggests at the very least that Hilton did

not discharge his obligations to his client because he was

unfamiliar with the facts and law of this case. See Civ L R 11-

4(a)(5). Accordingly, pursuant to Civ L R 11-6(a)(4), the court

Case 3:02-cv-02250-VRW Document 89 Filed 04/12/06 Page 2 of 4
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

3

DIRECTS the clerk to refer this matter to the court’s Standing

Committee on Professional Conduct to determine whether the court

should refer Hilton to the State Bar of California for an inquiry

whether Hilton has failed to perform legal services competently or

take other action as a result of the matters described in this

order and in the court’s March 1, 2006 order (Doc #83).

Finally, the court notes that it had instructed Hilton to

attend the court’s “Train the Trainer” course on the district’s efiling system and “to e-file a declaration confirming his

attendance.” Doc #18. But instead of attending the training

course, Hilton filed a paper letter requesting an extension because

he claimed he would be unable to attend before the deadline. Doc

#19. The record does not indicate whether Hilton ever attended the

course.

Because Hilton never submitted proof that he attended the

e-filing training course, the court once again DIRECTS Hilton to

provide proof of his attendance. This proof must be submitted by

May 15, 2006, via the court’s e-filing system. If Hilton has yet

to attend this course in person, he can find information about it

online at https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/tutorials_training.htm

or by calling the court’s toll-free e-filing help line at (866)

638-7829. No extensions of time will be granted.

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:02-cv-02250-VRW Document 89 Filed 04/12/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Furthermore, Hilton is ORDERED to submit proof not later

than ten days after entry of this order that he has provided a copy

of this order and the court’s March 1, 2006 order upon his client

in this matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:02-cv-02250-VRW Document 89 Filed 04/12/06 Page 4 of 4