Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02599/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02599-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NICOLE CHAKER, an individual,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10cv2599-GPC(BGS)

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

[Dkt. Nos. 141, 142.] 

vs.

ROBERT ADAMS, an individual;

Officer HERZIG, an individual; CITY

OF SAN DIEGO, a government entity;

and DOES 1-50, inclusive

Defendants.

On May 10, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s

order, filed on April 26, 2016, (Dkt. No. 140), dismissing the case. (Dkt. Nos. 141,

142.) 

A motion for reconsideration is “appropriate if the district court is provided with

(1) newly discovered evidence; (2) clear error or manifest injustice, or (3) if there is an

intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or.

v. AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). In addition, Local Civil Rule

7.1(i)(1) provides that a motion for reconsideration must include an affidavit or

certified statement of a party or attorney “setting forth the material facts and

circumstances surrounding each prior application, including inter alia: (1) when and

to what judge the application was made, (2) what ruling or decision or order was made

- 1 - [10cv2599-GPC(BGS)]

Case 3:10-cv-02599-GPC-BGS Document 143 Filed 05/13/16 Page 1 of 4
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

thereon, and (3) what new and different facts and circumstances are claimed to exist

which did not exist, or were not shown upon such prior application.” Local Civ. R.

7.1(i)(1). 

Plaintiff argues that the Court should reinstate the case because her medical

condition prevented her from being able to contact pro bono counsel. She attaches

medical records, filed under seal, to support her medical condition. In the event the

Court grants Plaintiff’s motion, she requests that the Court appoint another pro bono

counsel and suggests that “Lathan & Wakins, Perkins Coie, Procopio” be appointed. 

(Dkt. No. 142 at 6.) 

The Court appointed pro bono counsel from the Court’s Pro Bono Panel, a

second time, on December 2, 2015. (Dkt. No. 120.) On February 1, 2016, pro bono

counsel, a partner at Jones Day, filed a motion to withdraw as pro bono counsel

because she spent two full months attempting to contact Plaintiff with no success. 

(Dkt. No. 122.) During December 2015 and January 2016, pro bono counsel tried all

forms of communication to contact Plaintiff, including sending her a letter by U.S.

certified mail which was returned unopened, contacting former pro bono counsel to

obtain Plaintiff’s telephone number since she will not provide the Court with her

telephone number but to no avail, and physically visiting her home but no one

answered the door even though it sounded like the house was occupied. (Id.) A few

days after she filed her motion to withdraw, pro bono counsel filed a letter informing

the Court of recent developments of Plaintiff’s attempt to contact her. (Dkt. No. 124.) 

On February 3, 2016, Plaintiff reportedly left two voicemail messages where she

questioned whether the pro bono attorney was an attorney and seemed to allude thatshe

was part of a larger conspiracy with the police and the District Attorney’s Office

against her. (Id.) Later that same day, the office administrator of Jones Day spoke

1

Later, in a filing on March 16, 2016, Plaintiff expressed her dissatisfaction with the two 1

counsel appointed by the Court. Plaintiff stated that she learned the second pro bono attorney was a

Deputy District Attorney from Los Angeles. (Dkt. No. 131 at 2.) For some reason, she did not find

that acceptable and appears to believe there is a conspiracy against her involving the District

Attorney’s office. (Id.) She also states that she never agreed to allow both counsel that were appointed

- 2 - [10cv2599-GPC(BGS)]

Case 3:10-cv-02599-GPC-BGS Document 143 Filed 05/13/16 Page 2 of 4
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

with Plaintiff, although she refused to identify herself, and asked whether the pro bono

attorney was really an attorney. (Id.) The office administrator attempted to get

information from Plaintiff but she refused to provide her name or any information and

became increasingly aggressive and hung up the phone after saying “fuck off, asshole.” 

(Id.) 

On March 11, 2016, a hearing was held on the motion to withdraw. (Dkt. No.

127.) Plaintiff did not appear at the hearing, did not inform the Court she would not

attend, and did not provide a response on the motion to withdraw explaining her

reasons for her inability to meet with pro bono counsel. Now, in her motion, Plaintiff

claims that as of February 12, 2016 she was diagnosed with a medical condition that

prevented her from communicating with appointed counsel. However, she does not

explain why she was unable to respond to pro bono’s counsel’s effort to contact her

prior to February 12, 2016, and why she failed to raise these issues at the hearing on

pro bono counsel’s motion to withdraw. It appears that Plaintiff was not satisfied with

the two pro bono counsel that were randomly selected from the Court’s Pro Bono

Panel. The Pro Bono Panel in the Southern District of California has a limited number

of attorneys who have volunteered to serve on the panel; it is a scarce resource. Once

an attorney or law firm accepts an appointment, that attorney or law firm cannot be

appointed for a two year period. (S.D. Cal. General Order 596.) In this case, the Court

has appointed two competent local attorneys in the community to represent Plaintiff;

however, because Plaintiff was not satisfied with them, she refused to communicate

with them. As a result, both pro bono attorneys filed motions to withdraw. Plaintiff

cannot pick and choose who she wants as a pro bono attorney. Based on the record,

Plaintiff’s stated reason for not contacting the pro bono attorney based on her medical

condition is without merit. 

The Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate thatreconsideration

is warranted and has not satisfied the factors that support reconsideration. Plaintiff did

to represent her. (Id.) 

- 3 - [10cv2599-GPC(BGS)]

Case 3:10-cv-02599-GPC-BGS Document 143 Filed 05/13/16 Page 3 of 4
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

not demonstrate there was newly discovered evidence, clear error or manifest injustice,

or an intervening change in controlling law. See School Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: May 13, 2016

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 4 - [10cv2599-GPC(BGS)]

Case 3:10-cv-02599-GPC-BGS Document 143 Filed 05/13/16 Page 4 of 4