Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01239/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01239-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Porterville
Defendant
John Duran
Plaintiff
John Lollis
Defendant
Chuck McMillan
Defendant
Porterville Police Department
Defendant
Richard Standridge
Defendant

Document Text:

1

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 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

INTRODUCTION

Presently before the Court is a Motion by Plaintiff John Duran to “dismiss his attorney of 

record,” James C. Holland, and proceed in this action in propria persona, which the Court construes as 

a motion for Plaintiff to substitute as his own attorney. (Doc. 48). Plaintiff’s Counsel James Holland 

filed a response supporting Plaintiff’s request to appear in propria persona in this matter. Defendants

did not file a response to the motion. The matter was heard on January 15, 2015, before United States 

Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. Counsel James Holland appeared in person on behalf of 

Plaintiff. Counsel Ryan Nelson appeared in person on behalf of Defendants. Plaintiff John Duran also 

JOHN DURAN,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF PORTERVILLE, et al.,

Defendants.

/

Case No. 1: 12-cv-1239-AWI-BAM

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO WITHDRAW AND 

SUBSTITUE IN PRO PER

(Doc. 48)

Case 1:12-cv-01239-LJO-BAM Document 53 Filed 01/23/15 Page 1 of 5
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

appeared in person.1 Having considered the moving papers, arguments presented at the hearing, as 

well as the Court’s file, Plaintiff’s request to substitute himself in propria persona is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that on May 31, 2012, Plaintiff planned to hold a “get out the 

vote” event on June 2, 2012 at a public park in the City of Porterville. Plaintiff contacted the City’s 

Parks and Leisure department to obtain permission to hold the event and to place the signs at the 

event. The Parks and Leisure employee, to whom Plaintiff spoke, approved Plaintiff’s event, including 

the planned placement of the signs.

On June 2, 2012, Plaintiff set up his event and placed the signs against a park bench. 

Thereafter, Defendant Officer Standridge, while on duty, approached Plaintiff and ordered Plaintiff to 

remove the signs because they violated a City ordinance. Officer Standridge did not specify which 

City ordinance Plaintiff had allegedly violated. Plaintiff then placed the signs on the lawn of the park 

approximately 20 feet from the bench. Later that day, Officer Standridge returned and ordered Plaintiff 

to remove the signs from the park entirely. Pursuant to Officer Standridge’s orders, Plaintiff and others 

in attendance removed the signs and, with Officer Standridge’s express approval, placed them on the 

windshields and bumpers of their vehicles parked approximately five to six feet.

On July 30, 2012, based on the events above, Plaintiff John Duran, proceeding pro se, filed the 

underlying Complaint against Defendants the City of Porterville, California; the City’s Manager, John 

Lollis; the Porterville Police Department (“PPD”); its Chief of Police, Chuck McMillan; and PPD 

Officer Richard Standridge. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff’s suit challenges the constitutionality and applicability 

of the City ordinance that allegedly provided Standridge the authority to order Plaintiff to remove the 

signs. 

On February 15, 2013, Plaintiff substituted attorney James C. Holland as counsel for Plaintiff 

in place and instead of John Duran, in pro se. On August 1, 2014, Defendants moved for summary 

 

1

A break was taken during the hearing for Mr. Duran and Counsel Ryan Nelson to determine if they could resolve 

the entire case. Following the meeting, Counsel Ryan Nelson and Mr. Duran reported that the matter is not currently in 

settlement posture.

Case 1:12-cv-01239-LJO-BAM Document 53 Filed 01/23/15 Page 2 of 5
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

27

28

judgment on Plaintiff’s claims, which the Court denied on September 19, 2014. (Doc. 43). Shortly 

thereafter, Plaintiff, represented by counsel, filed a notice of settlement. (Doc. 46). In light of the 

Notice of Settlement filed on November 6, 2014, the Court ordered the parties to file appropriate 

papers to dismiss no later than December 1, 2014 and vacated all pending dates, including trial. The 

parties were unable to agree to final terms of dismissal and on December 1, 2014, Plaintiff filed the 

instant motion to substitute in pro per. 

Plaintiff now seeks an order from this court “dismissing” Mr. Holland as his attorney of record

for engaging in improper settlement negotiations. (Doc. 48). Mr. Holland disputes Plaintiff’s 

allegations, but also seeks to terminate representation in this case, allowing Plaintiff to substitute as his 

own attorney. (Doc. 50). 

DISCUSSION

In the Eastern District of California, attorneys representing parties to a civil case are subject to 

this Court’s Local Rule 182(d) which provides: 

Unless otherwise provided herein, an attorney who has appeared may not withdraw 

leaving the client in propria persona without leave of Court upon noticed motion and 

notice to the client and all other persons who have appeared. The attorney shall provide 

an affidavit stating the current or last known address or addresses of the client and the 

efforts made to notify the client of the motion to withdraw. Withdrawal as attorney is 

governed by the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California, and the 

attorney shall conform to the requirements of those Rules. The authority and duty of 

the attorney of record shall continue until relieved by order of the Court issued 

hereunder. Leave to withdraw may be granted subject to such appropriate conditions as 

the Court deems fit.

LR 182(d); see also, Canandaigua Wine Co., Inc. v. Edwin Moldauer, 2009 WL 89141, *1 (E.D. Cal. 

2009) (Whether to grant leave to withdraw is subject to the sound discretion of the Court and “may be 

granted subject to such appropriate conditions as the Court deems fit.”)

This motion, however, presents a different scenario. Here, it is the client—rather than his 

attorney—who seeks an order removing counsel from the representation. This specific type of motion 

is uncommon in a civil case, absent very particular circumstances inapplicable here, since a client may 

discharge an attorney at any time for any reason, and may do so without a court order when both the 

client and the attorney agree. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 284 (“The attorney in an action or special 

Case 1:12-cv-01239-LJO-BAM Document 53 Filed 01/23/15 Page 3 of 5
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

proceeding may be changed at any time before or after judgment of final determination....Upon the 

consent of both client and attorney, filed with the clerk, or entered upon the minutes.”); Forslund v. 

Forslund, 225 Cal. App. 2d 476, 488, 37 Cal. Rptr. 489 (1964) (“A client can discharge his attorney 

of record at any time and substitute another in his place.”), superseded by statute on other grounds, 

Cal. Civ. Code § 4600. 

Here, Plaintiff’s Counsel agrees with Plaintiff’s desire to terminate his representation in this 

case as demonstrated by the instant motion and Mr. Holland’s “request that the representation be 

terminated.” (Doc. 50). “Withdrawal as attorney is governed by the Rules of Professional Conduct of the 

State Bar of California, and the attorney shall conform to the requirements of those Rules.” The Rules of 

Professional Conduct provide that an attorney may withdraw from representation if “[t]he client knowingly 

and freely assents to termination of employment.” California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3-

700(C)(5).

The decision to grant counsel’s motion to withdraw is within the discretion of the trial court. 

Canandaiqua Wine Co., Inc. v. Moldauer, No. 1:12-cv-06599, 2009 WL 89141 *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 

2009). In this instance, counsel agrees to withdraw in part because he has been “discharged” by his 

client. (Decl. of James Holland ¶ 5). Given Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in propria persona and 

desire to discharge his attorney, the Court finds that Plaintiff may substitute himself, in propria 

persona. The Clerk of the Court shall amend the docket to reflect that Plaintiff John Duran now 

represents himself in this matter.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion is construed as a motion to substitute Plaintiff in propria person and 

the Motion is GRANTED. 

2. Plaintiff John Duran is SUBSTITUTED in propria persona.

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to update the docket with the contact information of 

John Duran: 

Case 1:12-cv-01239-LJO-BAM Document 53 Filed 01/23/15 Page 4 of 5
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

John Duran 

1279 West Henderson Avenue 

Personal Mail Box #236 

Porterville, California 93257 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 21, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01239-LJO-BAM Document 53 Filed 01/23/15 Page 5 of 5