Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04961/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04961-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN DOHERTY, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY OF ALAMEDA and CITY OF

ALAMEDA HOUSING AND BUILDING

CODE HEARING AND APPEALS BOARD,

Defendants. /

No. 09-4961-EDL

ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEY LEE

GRANT’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW,

GRANTING EDWARD HOLTZ’S

MOTION TO WITHDRAW, GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMOVE

COUNSEL, GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST TO USE THE COURT’S EFILING SYSTEM, AND CONTINUING

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

 Plaintiff’s counsel Lee Grant and Edward Holtz have both filed motions to withdraw as

counsel of record in this matter, and the motions have been served on all parties to the action. Mr.

Doherty subsequently filed a “Motion to Remove Counsel for Plaintiff Doherty,” stating that he

intends to seek new counsel and will proceed pro se during the transition period. Mr. Doherty’s

motion also requests that the Court allow him to use the e-filing system, and seeks a continuance of

the matter while he obtains new counsel. 

According to Civil Local Rule 11-5, “[c]ounsel may not withdraw from an action until relieved

by order of Court after written notice has been given reasonably in advance to the client and to all

other parties who have appeared in the case.” Further, “[w]hen withdrawal by an attorney from an

action is not accompanied by simultaneous appearance of substitute counsel or agreement of the

party to appear pro se, leave to withdraw may be subject to the condition that papers may continue to

be served on counsel for forwarding purposes, unless and until the client appears by other counsel or

pro se.” Civil L.R. 11-5(b). The decision to grant or deny an attorney’s motion to withdraw as

counsel is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. LaGrand v. Stewart, 133 F.3d 1253,

1269 (9th Cir. 1998).

Case 3:09-cv-04961-EDL Document 52 Filed 05/06/10 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

After reviewing the papers submitted by the parties, there is good cause to GRANT Plaintiff’s

attorneys’ motions to withdraw and GRANT Plaintiff’s motion to remove counsel. Plaintiff has

received notice of his counsels’ requests to withdraw and has filed a motion to remove his counsel

and agreed to proceed pro se until he obtains counsel. In light of his current pro se status, Plaintiff is

hereby referred to the pro se help desk of this Court, information about which can be found on the

Court’s website, www.cand.uscourts.gov, or by calling 415-782-9000. 

Further, Plaintiff has requested that he be allowed to use the Court’s e-filing system. Plaintiff

is warned that utilization of the e-filing system means that he will be presumed to receive all Court

filings and other notifications when they are transmitted electronically, and the Court will not excuse

any failure to abide by all Court rules and deadlines due to any lack of notice because such notice

was provided in electronic form only. Any such failure will result in revocation of Plaintiff’s efiling permission. Subject to these warning, Plaintiff’s request to use the Court’s e-filing system is

GRANTED. Plaintiff is hereby Ordered to register to use this system immediately to avoid missing

any important filings or other notifications in this action. The procedure for registering for e-filing

is detailed on the Court’s website. Plaintiff is directed to the purple button on the left had side of the

Court’s home page labeled “ECF-Pacer” and from there to the “Registration” button on the left hand

side of the next screen. From there, Plaintiff is directed to follow the instructions for ECF

registration, including registering for “Pacer” before or immediately after registering for “ECF.” At

the end of the registration, as a pro se e-filing applicant, Plaintiff is required to submit both an

electronic copy and a paper copy of the application to the Court’s automation department pursuant to

the on-line instructions. If this application is complete, Plaintiff will receive notification from the

automation department with an e-filing password within approximately three days of receipt of the

paper copy of the application. 

Finally, Plaintiff has requested a continuance of the action to allow him to obtain new counsel. 

The Court hereby CONTINUES the Case Management Conference currently set for May 11, 2010 

until June 15, 2010 to coincide with attorney Lee Grant’s motion to file an attorney’s lien. Plaintiff

is hereby Ordered to make every effort to obtain counsel by that date and to appear with counsel at 

//

Case 3:09-cv-04961-EDL Document 52 Filed 05/06/10 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

the case management conference. A joint case management conference statement is due no later

than June 8, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 6, 2010

 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:09-cv-04961-EDL Document 52 Filed 05/06/10 Page 3 of 3