Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01780/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01780-6/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

LARRY GIRALDES,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFFREY BEARD,

Defendant.

No. 2:14-cv-1780 CKD P

ORDER

Before the court is plaintiff’s July 15, 2015 motion for substitution of counsel. (ECF No. 

29.) In it, he asserts that “serious and irreconcilable conflict” exists between him and his 

attorney. (Id.) Plaintiff further asserts that “[t]he outcome desired by counsel, and the outcome 

desired by plaintiff, are at odds” and requests that the court appoint another attorney to represent 

him. (Id.)

On August 12, 2015, the court ordered plaintiff’s counsel to respond to plaintiff’s

assertions. (ECF No. 30.) Plaintiff’s appointed pro bono counsel, Mr. Reinach, has filed a 

response. (ECF No. 31.) 

Having reviewed this response, the court concludes that the conflict between plaintiff and 

his appointed counsel mainly concerns legal strategy and timing; that Mr. Reinach has experience 

litigating the issues in this lawsuit; and that he is diligently acting on plaintiff’s behalf, although 

distance and scheduling issues have made in-person contact difficult. As it appears that plaintiff’s 

Case 2:14-cv-01780-CKD Document 32 Filed 08/26/15 Page 1 of 2
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

interests would be best served by continuing to retain Mr. Reinach, the court will deny plaintiff’s 

motion for substitution of counsel.1

Good cause appearing, the court will also extend the discovery and dispositive motion

deadlines. (See ECF No. 31.) 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for substitution of counsel (ECF No. 29) is denied; 

2. The discovery deadline in this action is extended to October 14, 2015.

3. The dispositive motion deadline in this action is extended to December 18, 2015.

Dated: August 26, 2015

2/gira1780.ord(2)

 

1

Plaintiff may renew his motion, but is cautioned that courts may decline to appoint counsel 

where a litigant has acted irresponsibly or unreasonably toward his or her prior counsel. Hill v. 

Hall, 818 F. Supp. 269, 272 (E.D. Wisc. 1993).

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:14-cv-01780-CKD Document 32 Filed 08/26/15 Page 2 of 2