Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01780/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01780-9/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

At plaintiff’s request, he was appointed pro bono counsel in this prisoner civil rights 

action on March 11, 2015. (ECF No. 18.) Plaintiff subsequently moved for substitution of 

counsel (ECF No. 29); however, after reviewing the response from plaintiff’s counsel, the court 

concluded it would be in plaintiff’s interest to retain his attorney rather than litigate this action 

pro se, and denied the motion. (ECF No. 32.) 

Plaintiff next filed a pro se motion for a preliminary injunction, which was denied. (ECF 

No. 36.) The court informed plaintiff that as long as he was represented by counsel, his pro se 

filings would be disregarded, “except as they pertain to the retention of counsel.” (Id.) 

Meanwhile, plaintiff’s attorney continued to meet and confer with opposing counsel on 

scheduling issues in this action. (ECF Nos. 37 & 38.) 

Before the court is plaintiff’s latest pro se motion. (ECF No. 41.) He again complains 

that his attorney is not representing his interests or litigating this action as plaintiff wishes. (Id.) 

Case 2:14-cv-01780-CKD Document 44 Filed 02/08/16 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

He requests that his previous, pro se motion for injunction be reconsidered, with his attorney 

“being allowed to continue doing what he wants, when he wants, without plaintiff being involved 

for the remainder of this case.” (Id. at 3.) 

In a recent filing, plaintiff’s counsel points out that plaintiff’s ongoing pro se filings have 

“created uncertainty as to Plaintiff’s relationship with his counsel and the scope of his authority.” 

(ECF No. 42 at 3.) The court agrees. Plaintiff is advised that, if he continues to file pro se 

motions, the court will look favorably upon any motion to withdraw filed by plaintiff’s attorney, 

and plaintiff will litigate this action pro se. See Hill v. Hall, 818 F. Supp. 269, 272 (E.D. Wisc. 

1993) (courts may decline to appoint counsel where a litigant has acted irresponsibly or 

unreasonably toward his or her prior counsel). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for leave of court (ECF 

No. 41) is denied. 

Dated: February 8, 2016

2/gira1780.ord(3)

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:14-cv-01780-CKD Document 44 Filed 02/08/16 Page 2 of 2