Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-01189/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-01189-1/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 Nevertheless, Plaintiff has pointed to several issues regarding his medical care at

Vacaville which are presently unresolved. (Mot. at 6-8.) 

04cv1189

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LINDSAY JOHN MAX,

Plaintiff,

v.

WARDEN ROBERT J. HERNANDEZ, et

al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 04cv1189-L(AJB)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION AND HIS EX

PARTE APPLICATION FOR

ENLARGEMENT OF TIME

In this civil rights action, Plaintiff, an inmate in state custody, alleges violation of his

Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment. Plaintiff suffers from Chron’s

disease, hepatitis C, and related complications. He claims the prison staff have been deliberately

indifferent to his serious medical needs. Plaintiff filed the case pro se and it was subsequently

referred to San Diego Volunteer Lawyer Program (“SDVLP”). On April 28, 2005, Frank J.

Polek, Esq. substituted into the case as Plaintiff’s pro bono counsel. With the assistance of

counsel, Plaintiff filed a fourth amended complaint and a second motion for a preliminary

injunction. Plaintiff’s counsel also assisted in settlement negotiations. In December 2005,

Plaintiff was transferred to the California Medical Facility at Vacaville and secured compliance

by the prison officials with his doctor’s orders for a Chron’s disease diet.1

 (Mot. for

Case 3:04-cv-01189-MMA-AJB Document 145 Filed 01/25/08 Page 1 of 5
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 Plaintiff contends he did not respond because he was not directed by the court to

file a response. The court does not issue notices advising litigants whether they should respond

to ex parte applications. Plaintiff maintains that even if he were advised by the court that he

should respond to his counsel’s ex parte application, he would not be able to due to his severe

illness from August to October 2007. (See Notice of Lodgment, filed Nov. 26, 2007

(“Lodgment”) Exh. 8-11.) The exhibits filed in support of his motion demonstrate that during

the same period Plaintiff filed two inmate grievances and an extensive letter to his doctor. 

Although Plaintiff was hospitalized from October 5 to October 10, 2007, this should not have

prevented him from responding to the ex parte application he received on September 17, 2007. 

(Cf. Lodgment Exh. 11; Decl. ¶ 6.)

2 04cv1189

Reconsideration, filed Nov. 26, 2007 (“Mot.”), at 5, 7.) On September 7, 2007 Plaintiff’s

counsel filed an Ex Parte Application to Withdraw as Counsel of Record. Defendants did not

oppose. Plaintiff was served and received the application, but did not respond.2 (Decl. of

Lindsay John Max, filed Nov. 26, 2007 (“Decl.”), ¶ 6.) On October 11, 2007, the court granted

the ex parte application and permitted Plaintiff’s counsel to withdraw. On November 26, 2007,

Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration, which his counsel opposes. Plaintiff subsequently

filed a notice of supplemental lodgment in support of his motion and an ex parte application for

enlargement of time to file a reply to his counsel’s opposition. For the reasons which follow,

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and his ex parte application are DENIED.

Plaintiff’s motion is untimely. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(i)(2), a motion to

reconsider must be filed no later than 30 days after the entry of the order sought to be

reconsidered. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the October 11, 2007 order was filed on

November 26, 2007. However, due to Plaintiff’s severe health issues and related difficulties

with the prison correctional and medical staff, documented in the notice of lodgment in support

of his motion to reconsider (see Lodgment Exh. 11) and his ex parte application for enlargement

of time to file a reply brief, the court finds good cause to enlarge the time to file a motion for

reconsideration. 

Plaintiff bases his motion on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) and (6), which

provides in pertinent part:

On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party . . . from a final judgment,

order or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise,

or excusable neglect; . . . or (6) any other reason that justifies relief. . . . 

/ / / / /

Case 3:04-cv-01189-MMA-AJB Document 145 Filed 01/25/08 Page 2 of 5
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 04cv1189

It is within the court’s discretion to grant or deny a Rule 60(b) motion. United States v. Alpine

Land and Reservoir Co., 984 F.2d 1047, 1049 (9th Cir. 1993). 

If the motion is based on a Rule 60(b)(1) mistake by the court, Plaintiff must show that

the court committed a specific error. See Straw v. Bowen, 866 F.2d 1167, 1172 (9th Cir. 1989). 

In addition, “clause (6) acts as a catch-all allowing the court to grant relief for ‘any other reason

justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.’” Hamilton v. Newland, 374 F.3d 822, 825

(9th Cir. 2004), quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). This provision has been “used sparingly and as

an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation

omitted). A party is entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(6) if he demonstrates “extraordinary

circumstances” to justify relief. Straw, 866 F.2d at 1172. 

The October 11 order granting leave to withdraw was based on findings that the attorneyclient relationship had broken down and that Plaintiff would not be unduly prejudiced in the

prosecution of his case. Plaintiff claims these findings were erroneous.

Plaintiff disagrees the attorney-client relationship had broken down. At the same time, he

accuses his counsel of misrepresentation to the court and repeatedly complains the counsel was

non-responsive to his needs. (See Mot. at 4 (“counsel’s claims . . . have been misrepresented to

this honorable court”), 5 (“Prison officials have waged a continuous, two-year campaign of

harassment against this plaintiff which, despite plaintiff’s through documentation and counsel’s

personal knowledge of same, has never been related to this honorable Court.”), 6 (“plaintiff’s

attorney failed to act”), 7 (Plaintiff’s attorney did appraise the Court of plaintiff’s situation, but

solely for the purpose of receiving an enlargement of time to complete discovery.”), 8

(“Plaintiff’s attorney, acting as a diligent advocate for plaintiff’s rights, should have appraised

the Court . . ..”).) Plaintiff’s own statements demonstrate that the attorney-client relationship is

indeed broken down and that Plaintiff is dissatisfied with his counsel. 

In addition, Plaintiff claims he will be prejudiced if his counsel is allowed to withdraw,

because he is in a physical and mental state worse than when he arrived at Vacaville. (Mot. at

8.) Plaintiff’s pleadings contradict this assertion. Even under the present circumstances,

Plaintiff’s filings demonstrate he is able to clearly articulate his claims and legal arguments. 

Case 3:04-cv-01189-MMA-AJB Document 145 Filed 01/25/08 Page 3 of 5
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 court considered whether Plaintiff meets the exceptional circumstances

standard for appointment of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Plaintiff does not meet

the standard because he is able to articulate his claims pro se in this case. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991).

4 04cv1189

Prior to filing the ex parte application to withdraw, Plaintiff’s counsel secured an extension of

pre-trial deadlines. If further extensions of time are necessary, Plaintiff is capable of requesting

relief pro se. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff has not met the standards of Rule 60(b)(1) or (6).

In the ex parte application filed January 18, 2008, Plaintiff requested an extension of time

to reply to his counsel’s opposition filed November 30, 2007. On December 5, 2007, Plaintiff

filed a Notice of Supplemental Lodgments in support of his motion, which attached medical

records covering the summer and fall of 2007. In his reply, Plaintiff wants to present more

recent medical records and address the statements and opinions of his counsel contained in the

three-page opposition. In considering Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, the court accepted

Plaintiff’s representations regarding his medical condition, including the representations made in

his January 18 ex parte application. Accordingly, further medical records are not necessary. 

With respect to Plaintiff’s desire to address his counsel’s statements and opinions, the reply

would be irrelevant. Plaintiff’s own statements demonstrate that the attorney-client relationship

is broken down and his motion filings show he is sufficiently capable of self-representation in

this case. 

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and his ex parte application for enlargement of time

are DENIED. Pursuant to Plaintiff’s request, the court will again refer this case to the SDVLP.3

Plaintiff should note, however, that it is by no means certain that SDVLP will again be able to

locate pro bono counsel to represent him.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 25, 2008

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

Case 3:04-cv-01189-MMA-AJB Document 145 Filed 01/25/08 Page 4 of 5
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

5 04cv1189

COPY TO: 

HON. ANTHONY J. BATTAGLIA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:04-cv-01189-MMA-AJB Document 145 Filed 01/25/08 Page 5 of 5