Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01040/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01040-4/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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CHARLES GREESON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MITCHELL, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-1040 KJN P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a former jail inmate, proceeding without counsel. On May 12, 2016, plaintiff 

filed a motion for protective order, claiming that Theron Holston is plaintiff’s “attorney-infact/legal assistant.” (ECF No. 44 at 1.) Plaintiff claims that he has a First Amendment right to 

associate with his “legal assistant” Mr. Holston. Plaintiff notes that defendants recently moved 

for a protective order to prevent plaintiff from sharing discovery documents with Mr. Holston. 

Plaintiff points to an e-mail exchange between plaintiff and defense counsel, contending it 

demonstrates defense counsel agreed to this arrangement with Mr. Holston, and further claims 

that Mr. Holston has “power of attorney to meet and confer with [defense counsel].” (ECF No. 

44 at 4.) 

 Review of plaintiff’s motion makes clear that the motion was written prior to plaintiff’s 

receipt of the court’s April 29, 2016 order addressing defendants’ motion for protective order and 

Case 2:15-cv-01040-KJN Document 45 Filed 05/20/16 Page 1 of 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 

2

other motions.1 (ECF No. 41.) Because the April 29 order denied defendants’ motion for 

protective order and informed plaintiff that Mr. Holston is free to assist plaintiff with his 

litigation, the court denies plaintiff’s motion without prejudice. 

 However, as plaintiff was warned in the April 29, 2016 order, Mr. Holston may not serve 

as plaintiff’s attorney at law. (ECF No. 41 at 7.) A power of attorney does not grant Mr. Holston 

authority to serve as plaintiff’s attorney at law. See Drake v. Superior Court, 21 Cal. App. 4th 

1826, 26 Cal. Rptr.2d 829 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994). In Drake, the court found that even though the 

power of attorney authorized Drake to act as agent for his principal in litigation, the unlicensed 

practice of law is categorically prohibited in California, and the Power of Attorney Act did not 

provide an exception to this rule. Id. Long before passage of the Power of Attorney Act, the law 

distinguished between an attorney in fact and an attorney at law, and emphasized that a power of 

attorney is not a vehicle which authorizes an attorney in fact to act as an attorney at law. Drake, 

26 Cal.Rptr.2d at 831. If the rule were otherwise, the State Bar Act could be relegated to 

contempt by any layman who secured from his principal an ordinary power of attorney, for the 

purpose of representing him in pending litigation. Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted). 

Drake at 831. Therefore, the court concluded, Drake could not “use the statutory form power of 

attorney as a device to practice law for his principal.” Id. at 832-33. 

 Because Mr. Holston is not an attorney licensed to practice law in California, he cannot 

file actions, sign pleadings for, or act on behalf of plaintiff, even with a power of attorney. Johns 

v. Cnty. of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997) (“While a non-attorney may appear pro 

se on his own behalf, he has no authority to appear as an attorney for others than himself.”) 

(citations and internal quotation marks omitted); Ryan v. Hyden, 2012 WL 4793116, *4 (S.D. 

Cal. Oct. 9, 2012) (nonlawyer son with power of attorney for parents could not draft pleadings 

and pursue claims on their behalf as it constituted the unauthorized practice of law under 

California law; complaint dismissed); Lomax v. City of Antioch Police Officers, 2011 WL 

4345057, *3-4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2011) (uninjured father acting as attorney-in-fact for injured 

 

1

 The instant motion was signed by Mr. Holston on May 2, 2016, and by plaintiff on May 10, 

2016. (ECF No. 44 at 7.) 

Case 2:15-cv-01040-KJN Document 45 Filed 05/20/16 Page 2 of 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 

3

son lacked standing to bring complaint on behalf of son and other family members for their 

injuries; power of attorney did not permit father to engage in the unauthorized practice of law; 

motion to dismiss complaint granted). Thus, plaintiff is mistaken that Mr. Holston may “meet 

and confer” with opposing counsel on plaintiff’s behalf, and plaintiff shall refrain from having 

Mr. Holston sign plaintiff’s filings in the future. Although Mr. Holston is free to assist plaintiff 

with his litigation, Mr. Holston is not permitted to serve as plaintiff’s attorney at law. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Defendants are relieved of their obligation to respond to plaintiff’s motion for 

protective order; and 

 2. Plaintiff’s motion for protective order (ECF No. 44) is denied without prejudice. 

Dated: May 20, 2016 

/cw/gree1040.poa 

 

Case 2:15-cv-01040-KJN Document 45 Filed 05/20/16 Page 3 of 3