Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02570/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02570-31/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

MILTON SYKES,

Plaintiff,

v.

ATHANNASIOUS, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:12-cv-2570 TLN KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding through counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 2, 2016, counsel for plaintiff filed a motion for leave to 

withdraw as attorney of record on the grounds that she is no longer able to effectively represent 

plaintiff due to a significant increase in the case load associated with her solo law practice. (ECF 

Nos. 127 & 127-1.) The motion was set for hearing before the undersigned on March 3, 2016, at 

10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 25. On February 16, 2016, defendant Khaira filed a qualified statement 

of non-opposition, indicating his concern that counsel’s withdrawal could result in a delay in his 

ability to have a summary judgment motion heard. (ECF No. 129.) On February 25, 2016, 

plaintiff filed a reply. (ECF No. 131.)

On March 3, 2016, a hearing on counsel for plaintiff’s motion to withdraw was held 

before the undersigned. Rebecca Ihejirika appeared on her own behalf, plaintiff Milton Sykes 

appeared telephonically, and Drew Larson appeared on behalf of defendant Khaira. Mr. Reager, 

Case 2:12-cv-02570-TLN-KJN Document 133 Filed 03/07/16 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

counsel for defendants Athannasious, Bick, and Weiland, did not appear.

The parties discussed the time constraints facing Ms. Ihejirika as a solo practitioner, the 

extensive work Ms. Ihejirika has already put into plaintiff’s case, and the status of the relationship 

between plaintiff and Ms. Ihejirika, which remains in good standing. In consideration of the 

court’s need to balance counsel’s interest in being released from the case, plaintiff’s interest in 

having his case move forward, and defendants’ interest in having the case resolved in a timely 

manner, the undersigned indicated that counsel’s motion to withdraw would be denied at this 

time. Ms. Ihejirika was given the option to remain as counsel for plaintiff with understanding that 

she may file, and the court will be inclined to grant, any reasonable requests for additional time to 

oppose defendants’ motions for summary judgment. In the alternative, Ms. Ihejirika was given 

the option to have pro bono co-counsel appointed to assist her in opposing defendants’ summary 

judgment motions. Ms. Ihejirika chose the first option, with the understanding that she may renew her motion to withdraw as counsel after any motions for summary judgment are resolved. 

Mr. Larson was strongly encouraged to stipulate to a reasonable request for additional time 

should Ms. Ihejirika request it.

The parties also discussed the current discovery and pre-trial motion deadlines, which 

remain in effect.1 Mr. Larson indicated that defendant Khaira anticipates filing a motion for 

summary judgment within the next thirty days. In order to accommodate plaintiff’s pro bono 

counsel and facilitate swift resolution of any motions for summary judgment, the court indicated 

that it would consider advancing the pre-trial motion deadline. Accordingly, once counsel for 

defendants Athannasious, Bick, and Weiland confirms that their summary judgment motion can 

be filed within the next sixty days,2the court will issue an order resetting the pre-trial motion 

deadline.

////

////

 

1 Discovery is set to close on April 1, 2016 and pre-trial motions are due by July 1, 2016.

2 Mr. Reager, counsel for defendants Athannasious, Bick, and Weiland, has been directed by

separate order to inform the court when their motion for summary judgment could be filed.

Case 2:12-cv-02570-TLN-KJN Document 133 Filed 03/07/16 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

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Counsel for plaintiff’s motion for leave to withdraw as attorney of record (ECF No. 

127) is denied. The denial shall be without prejudice to: (1) the filing of a reasonable 

request or requests for additional time to oppose defendants’ summary judgment 

motions; and (2) the re-filing of her motion to withdraw as attorney of record, after 

any motions for summary judgment are resolved.

2. Should plaintiff’s counsel later determine that she would like to have co-counsel 

appointed to assist her in opposing defendants’ summary judgment motions, she 

should contact the ADR and Pro Bono Program Coordinator, Sujean Park.

Dated: March 7, 2016

/syke2570.ord.atty

Case 2:12-cv-02570-TLN-KJN Document 133 Filed 03/07/16 Page 3 of 3