Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01405/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01405-3/pdf.json

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

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD JAMES JEFFERSON No. 2:09-cv-1405-MCE-GGH

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

Officer Curtis, individually,

Doe Zack, a Store manager,

and WAL-MART, INC.,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

On May 21, 2009, Plaintiff Edward James Jefferson

(“Plaintiff”) filed the present action in pro se, alleging

deprivations of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Some

seven months later, attorney James Joseph Lynch filed a Notice of

Substitution of Counsel purporting to effectuate his substitution

of counsel for both Plaintiff and one Cliff Hoffman, who

previously had no connection whatsoever to this lawsuit.

Case 2:09-cv-01405-MCE -KJN Document 18 Filed 03/16/10 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

Attorney Lynch concurrently filed a removal request attempting to

transfer one, and possibly two, state court actions brought by

Mr. Hoffman to this Court for adjudication. On January 16, 2010,

the Court denied Attorney Lynch’s requests.

On January 19, 2010, Lynch filed yet another request,

captioned “Ex Parte Application of Order re: Substitution of

Counsel and Removal”. The body of the document, however, makes

it clear that Lynch in fact is seeking a reconsideration of the

Court’s ruling on his prior requests. Specifically, the first

sentence of the Application asks unequivocally that the Court

“reconsider its ruling regarding substitution of counsel”. Ex

Parte App’n, 1:17-18. The Application goes on to argue that the 

Court erred in striking the Notice of Removal as both

procedurally and substantively improper. Lynch submits a

proposed application both effectuating the substitution and

reinstating the removal.

Lynch fails to understand that he cannot do anything until

he properly substitutes in to this matter as counsel for someone. 

The substitution he has submitted improperly attempts to do more

than to simply accomplish his representation of the only current

Plaintiff, Mr. Jefferson. Moreover, even if the Court were to

get past that fundamental defect, on a substantive basis Lynch

offers neither any newly-discovered evidence, evidence that the

Court committed any clear error, or evidence that the Court’s

decision with regard to removal was manifestly unjust, as it must

in order to justify reconsideration. See School Dist. No. 1J,

Multnomath County. Or. v. AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th

Cir. 1993). 

Case 2:09-cv-01405-MCE -KJN Document 18 Filed 03/16/10 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

Plaintiff’s Application/Reconsideration request (Docket No.

14) is accordingly DENIED. As the Court previously indicated,

Mr. Lynch has no standing to take any action regarding this case

whatsoever until he properly substitutes into this case. As the

Court already advised Lynch it its prior January 16, 2010 Order,

he cannot, within the same document, simultaneously seek both to

represent Mr. Jefferson and to seek relief on behalf of a party

with no current relation to this lawsuit. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 15, 2010

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-01405-MCE -KJN Document 18 Filed 03/16/10 Page 3 of 3