From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Giraldes v. Prebula

United States District Court, E.D. California
Sep 1, 2011
NO. CIV. S-01-2110 LKK/EFB (E.D. Cal. Sep. 1, 2011)

Opinion

NO. CIV. S-01-2110 LKK/EFB.

September 1, 2011


ORDER


On August 18, 2011, plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding with appointed counsel, filed a declaration stating that he has never been contacted by his appointed counsel and that he has been attempting to reach her for months. (Doc. No. 176). The following day, the court ordered counsel for plaintiff to respond within a week. (Doc. No. 177). Counsel submitted several documents under seal responding to plaintiff's contentions. (Doc. Nos. 181-83). On August 25, 2011, plaintiff submitted an "urgent request" that the court recognize that defendants are altering documents in his central file. (Doc. No. 180). As an example, plaintiff has provided two versions of a document apparently from his central file in which one has a hand written notation absent in the other version. (Id.) Plaintiff claims that the document without the note was submitted in support of defendant's summary judgment motion and the document with the note was copied from his central file. He also indicated that his mother has informed him that his counsel is resigning from this case. (Id.) A trial confirmation hearing in this case is currently set for September 12, 2011.

In light of the following, the court ORDERS as follows:

(1) Ellen C. Dove, appointed counsel for plaintiff, is relieved of the appointment. She no longer represents plaintiff.
(2) Counsel is ORDERED to release all client papers and property to clients within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order, including correspondences, pleadings, deposition transcripts, exhibits, physical evidence, expert reports, and other items reasonably necessary to the clients' representation, whether the clients have paid for them or not, in accordance with Rule 3-700(D) of the California Rules of Professional Conduct.
(3) The trial confirmation hearing in the above captioned case is continued to December 19, 2011 at 1:30 p.m. so that the court can attempt to find volunteer counsel for plaintiff.
(4) The court declines to issue an order on plaintiff's urgent request that the court recognize that defendants are altering documents in his central file. After the court determines whether it can find a new volunteer lawyer to represent plaintiff, plaintiff, either with or without counsel, will have an opportunity to object to defendants' exhibits and, to the extent relevant at trial, cross-examine defendants in light of the alleged alterations to any documents.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 31, 2011.


Summaries of

Giraldes v. Prebula

United States District Court, E.D. California
Sep 1, 2011
NO. CIV. S-01-2110 LKK/EFB (E.D. Cal. Sep. 1, 2011)
Case details for

Giraldes v. Prebula

Case Details

Full title:LARRY GIRALDES, JR., Plaintiff, v. T. PREBULA, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Sep 1, 2011

Citations

NO. CIV. S-01-2110 LKK/EFB (E.D. Cal. Sep. 1, 2011)