Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_04-cv-02249/USCOURTS-ared-4_04-cv-02249-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

WESTERN DIVISION

TINA BRADLEY PLAINTIFF

vs. CASE NO. 4:04CV2249GH

GARY DAVIS, ET AL. DEFENDANTS

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is the motion of Rickey Hicks for leave to withdraw as

counsel and defendant ConAgra ’s motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution. Hicks was

appointed to represent plaintiff on October 4, 2005. ConAgra has unsuccessfully attempted

to arrange with Hicks to take plaintiff’s deposition. ConAgra also states that plaintiff has

failed to provide Initial Disclosures or to respond to ConAgra’s discovery requests.

In his motion to withdraw Hicks states that he does not have the time or financial

resources to actively pursue this case. Local Rule 83.7 governs the appointment of

counsel. The time to request leave to withdraw has passed and the reasons asserted by

Hicks are not valid ones under the Local Rule for seeking withdrawal. Hicks can apply for

reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses, such as deposition costs, pursuant to Local Rule

83.6. He has not indicated why he does not have the time to work on this case. 

The Court is reluctant to saddle plaintiff with an attorney who is unwilling to

diligently prosecute her case. Nevertheless, Hicks is an experienced civil rights attorney

who should be able to adequately represent plaintiff in this action. Thus, the Court denies

the motion for leave to withdraw. Furthermore, the Court will not dismiss the case for lack

of prosecution based on counsel’s lack of diligence. Rather, plaintiff’s counsel is directed

to respond to the discovery requests within 20 days of the date of this order and to arrange

for ConAgra to take plaintiff’s deposition. 

Case 4:04-cv-02249-GH Document 71 Filed 01/19/06 Page 1 of 2
-2-

Accordingly, the motion to withdraw and the motion to dismiss for lack of

prosecution are denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 19th day of January, 2006.

________________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:04-cv-02249-GH Document 71 Filed 01/19/06 Page 2 of 2