Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01054/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01054-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dave Anderson
Defendant
Banner Community Hospital
Defendant
City of Susanville
Defendant
County of Lassen
Defendant
Granville Marshall
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GRANVILLE MARSHALL, M.D., 

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF SUSANVILLE, COUNTY OF

LASSEN, BANNER COMMUNITY

HOSPITAL, DAVE ANDERSON and

DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,

Defendants. 

CIV-S-04-1054 DFL/KJM

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION

AND ORDER

Plaintiff Granville H. Marshall, M.D. brings multiple

constitutional claims against the City of Susanville, Lassen

County, Banner Community Hospital, and individual defendants. On

July 20, 2006, the court issued a pretrial scheduling order

barring amendments to the pleadings without permission of the

court and a showing of good cause. On August 14, Marshall filed

a second amended complaint, without his attorneys’ knowledge or

the court’s permission. Defendants seek to dismiss or to strike

the second amended complaint and request sanctions. Marshall’s

attorneys seek to withdraw from representation. For the reasons

below, the court GRANTS the motions to strike, DENIES the motion

for sanctions, and GRANTS the motion to withdraw. 

Case 2:04-cv-01054-RRB -KJM Document 86 Filed 11/22/06 Page 1 of 3
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

2

I. 

The court grants the motion to strike the second amended

complaint. Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(f) and

37(b)(2)(C), the court may strike pleadings filed by a party

contrary to the terms of a scheduling order. Marshall failed to

comply with the July 20 pretrial scheduling order, neither

seeking the court’s permission nor showing good cause to file the

amended complaint. Although Banner seeks sanctions for

Marshall’s unauthorized amendment, the court finds that the

minimal effort required to strike Marshall’s clearly improper

filing does not justify the requested fees. The court,

therefore, denies the motion for sanctions. 

II.

The court grants Marshall’s attorneys’ motion to withdraw. 

Although Marshall filed an opposition to this motion on September

1, 2006, he stated at the November 1 hearing that he no longer

opposes withdrawal. Moreover, the attorneys sufficiently

demonstrated a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship

based upon scheduling disputes and Marshall’s subsequent pro per

filing. If Marshall intends to retain new counsel, the court

encourages him to do so promptly. If he intends to represent

himself, the court urges him to study the procedural requirements

and schedule imposed by the July 20 pretrial scheduling order. 

III.

For the above stated reasons, the court GRANTS the motion to

strike the second amended complaint, DENIES the motion for

Case 2:04-cv-01054-RRB -KJM Document 86 Filed 11/22/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

sanctions, and GRANTS the motion to withdraw. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 11/22/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01054-RRB -KJM Document 86 Filed 11/22/06 Page 3 of 3