Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02743/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02743-5/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KORDY RICE,

Plaintiff,

v.

FIELDER, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:18-CV-2743-DMC-P

ORDER

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is defense counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel 

for defendant Fielder (ECF No. 26). Defendant Fielder has submitted no opposition or response to 

the Court. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:18-cv-02743-TLN-DMC Document 30 Filed 06/12/20 Page 1 of 5
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

I. BACKGROUND

Defendant Fielder is currently represented by Deputy Attorney General Stacia L. 

Johns. Defense counsel summarizes the factual and procedural circumstances of this case as 

follows: 

Plaintiff initiated the present civil rights action on October 11, 

2018. (ECF No. 1.) The Court issued an order authorizing service as to 

Defendants Fielder and Wetterer on August 16, 2019. (ECF No. 12.) On 

January 16, 2020, the undersigned attorneys filed an Answer on behalf of 

Defendants Fielder and Wetterer. (ECF No. 16.) On January 22, 2020, the 

Court issued a discovery and scheduling order. (ECF No. 17.) Pursuant to 

that order, responses to written discovery requests are due within fortyfive days of service. (Id. at 1.) 

Plaintiff served interrogatories propounded on Defendant Fielder 

by mail on March 9, 2020. (Johns Decl. ¶ 3.) Accordingly, responses were 

due by April 27, 2020. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). 

Between April 21, 2020, and April 25, 2020, counsel experienced 

significant difficulties communicating with Defendant Fielder. (Johns 

Decl. ¶ 4.) On April 24, 2020, counsel advised Defendant Fielder that 

counsel would seek to withdraw from representation if the difficulties in

communication continued. (Johns Decl. ¶ 5.) Thereafter, there were 

further issues in communication and conduct, causing an irreparable 

breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. (Id.) 

Defense counsel was unable to obtain the information necessary to 

formulate and timely serve responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories, set one, 

propounded on Defendant Fielder. (Johns Decl. ¶ 6.) On April 27, 2020, 

defense counsel met and conferred with Plaintiff Rice via telephone to 

seek a sixty-day extension of time for Defendant Fielder to serve 

responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories, set one. (Johns Decl. ¶ 7.) Plaintiff 

Rice agreed to an extension of sixty days. (Id.) In addition, defense 

counsel formally sought an extension of time for Defendant Fielder to 

serve interrogatory responses by filing a motion with the court on April 

27, 2020. (Johns Decl. ¶ 8; see ECF No. 24.) The Court granted the sixtyday extension, and Defendant Fielder now has until June 29, 2020, to 

serve responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories, set one. (See ECF No. 25.)

This motion has been served on all other parties who have 

appeared in this matter. (Johns Decl. ¶ 13.) Defendant Fielder was served 

with a copy of the instant motion at his last known address. (Johns Decl. ¶ 

11.) Defense counsel also provided a courtesy copy of this motion to

Defendant Fielder by email. (Johns Decl. ¶ 12.)

ECF No. 26-1, pgs. 2-3.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:18-cv-02743-TLN-DMC Document 30 Filed 06/12/20 Page 2 of 5
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

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Withdrawal of counsel is governed by the Rules of Professional Conduct of the 

State Bar of California, and the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, 

Eastern District of California. See L.R. 182; L.S. v. Pan. Buena Vista Union Sch. Dist., No. 1:12-

cv-00744 LJO JLT, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109707, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2012). 

The California Rules of Professional Conduct provide that if the rules of a court 

require permission for an attorney to withdraw, the attorney may not withdraw from employment 

in a proceeding without the permission of such court. See Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 1.16(c). In 

addition, counsel must take reasonable steps to avoid prejudicing the rights of the client, 

including providing notice, allowing time for the client to employ other counsel, and complying 

with applicable laws and rules. See Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 1.16(d). Grounds for permissive 

withdrawal exist when "the client by other conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for the lawyer 

to carry out the representation effectively." See Cal. R. Prof. Conduct 1.16(b)(4).

The Local Rules provide that an attorney who has appeared on behalf of a client 

may not withdraw, leaving the client in propria persona, without leave of court upon noticed 

motion, along with notice to the client and all other parties who have appeared. See L.R. 182(d). 

The attorney is also required to "provide an affidavit stating the current or last known address or 

addresses of the client and the efforts made to notify the client of the motion to withdraw." Id.

Likewise, California's Rules of Court require notice of a motion to withdrawal to be served on the 

client and other parties who have appeared in the action. See Cal. R. Court 3.1362(d).

It is within the Court's discretion whether to grant withdrawal. See Canandaigua 

Wine Co., Inc. v. Moldauer, No. 1:02-CV-06599, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4238, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 

Jan. 13, 2009). "Factors the Court may consider include: (1) the reasons for withdrawal, (2) 

prejudice that may be caused to other litigants, (3) harm caused to the administration of justice, 

and (4) delay to the resolution of the case caused by withdrawal." L.S. ex rel. R.S., 2012 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 109707, 2012 WL 3236743, at *2 (citing Canandaigua, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

4238, at *4). 

Case 2:18-cv-02743-TLN-DMC Document 30 Filed 06/12/20 Page 3 of 5
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

III. DISCUSSION

Counsel seeks to withdraw from representing defendant Fielder in this action 

because of “difficulties in communication” with Fielder. ECF No. 26-1, pg. 4. According to 

defense counsel:

Between April 21, 2020, and April 25, 2020, defense counsel experienced 

significant difficulties communicating with Defendant Fielder. (Johns 

Decl. ¶ 4.) In an email dated April 24, 2020, defense counsel advised 

Defendant Fielder that counsel would seek to withdraw from 

representation if the difficulties in communication continued. (Johns Decl. 

¶ 5.) Thereafter, there were further issues in communication and conduct, 

causing an irreparable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. (Id.) 

Defense counsel was unable to obtain information necessary to timely 

respond to Plaintiff’s interrogatories, set one, propounded on Defendant

Fielder. (Johns Decl. ¶ 6.) Defendant Fielder’s actions have made it 

unreasonably difficult for defense counsel to effectively carry out the 

representation. (Johns Decl. ¶ 9.)

ECF No. 26-1, pg. 4.

Courts interpreting Rule 1.16 have held that "a client's failure to communicate with 

their attorneys constitutes good cause for the attorneys to seek withdrawal from representing the 

client." Almont Ambulatory Surgery Ctr., LLC v. UnitedHealth Grp., Inc., No. CV-14-02139-

MWF (VBKx), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185827, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2016). Here, it appears 

that, as a result of this breakdown in communication, defense counsel has been unable to 

adequately respond to plaintiff’s requests for discovery. Fielder, having submitted no response to 

the pending motion, does not dispute this. Responding to an opposing party’s request for 

discovery is the responsibility of the client’s attorney. Thus, the Court is satisfied that the abovereferenced circumstances render it “unreasonably difficult” for defense counsel to perform its 

duties. 

Additionally, it appears that defense counsel has taken reasonable steps to mitigate 

any foreseeable prejudice to Fielder. First, defense counsel was able to meet and confer with 

plaintiff to agree to an extension of time for Fielder to serve responses to plaintiff’s 

interrogatories, set one. See ECF No. 26-2, pg. 2; see also ECF No. 25 – Order granting 60-day 

extension of time. Second, defense counsel also secured a modification to the discovery and 

scheduling order, extending to discovery deadline to August 24, 2020. See ECF No. 29. 

Case 2:18-cv-02743-TLN-DMC Document 30 Filed 06/12/20 Page 4 of 5
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

5

Therefore, Fielder will not be confronted with an immediately impending discovery deadline 

upon withdrawal. 

Lastly, it appears that defendant Fielder was provided with proper notice of 

defense counsel’s intent to withdraw its representation. According to defense counsel:

After experiencing difficulty communicating with Defendant Fielder, 

defense counsel advised Defendant Fielder in an email that counsel would 

seek to withdraw from the representation if issues in communication 

continued. (Johns Decl. ¶ 5.) Thereafter, there were further issues in 

communication, causing an irreparable breakdown of the attorney-client 

relationship and rendering effective representation unreasonably difficult. 

(Johns Decl. ¶ 5, 9.) Defendant Fielder was served a copy of this motion at 

his last known address. (Johns Decl. ¶ 11.) Defense counsel also provided 

a courtesy copy of this motion to Defendant by email. (Johns Decl. ¶ 12.)

ECF No. 26-1 

The Court is satisfied that the above-mentioned attempts to notify Fielder of the 

issues with representation and of defense counsel’s motion to withdraw fall within the 

requirements of Local Rule 182(d) and California Rule of Court 3.1362(d).

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The motion to withdraw as counsel for defendant Fielder (ECF No. 26) is 

GRANTED; 

2. Stacia Lynn Johns is relieved of her duties and obligations as defendant 

Fielder’s attorney of record; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to remove Stacia Lynn Johns as attorney 

for defendant Fielder in this action.

Dated: June 12, 2020

____________________________________

DENNIS M. COTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:18-cv-02743-TLN-DMC Document 30 Filed 06/12/20 Page 5 of 5