IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 15, 2012
GORDON D. MEADOR, PLAINTIFF,
M. HAMMER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge
Noting (and disregarding) a plethora of inapposite pro se filings in this case, by order, filed on April 24, 2012 (docket # 37), the undersigned directed plaintiff's counsel to, within seven days, inform the court as to the understanding of both herself and plaintiff with regard to her representation of plaintiff in this matter. That period has expired and plaintiff's counsel, Julia Young, has failed to respond. Ironically, as to the pro se filings by plaintiff, which were inappropriate once counsel had substituted in, plaintiff filed yet another pro se document, this time a declaration to state that the pro se filings identified in the court's order at docket # 37 had actually been sent in December of 2011 or January of 2012, but had later been located unprocessed from the CSP-Sacramento mailroom and that his counsel had explained to him, by March of 2012, that her handling of the case meant he need not file anything more. Docket # 38. Of course, the irony is that plaintiff has, once again, sent a pro se filing in his effort to show he understood that he need make no more pro se filings. His counsel appears, however, to be wholly disengaged. At this time the court will not direct service of the summons and complaint upon the three defendants until it becomes clear whether plaintiff is in fact proceeding with counsel. Counsel's failure to respond to date is impeding this litigation.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's counsel, Julia Young, is to show cause within seven (7) days of the file date of this order why she should not be held in and/or sanctioned for contempt in failing to respond to the court's order, filed on April 24, 2012 (docket # 37); and
2. Plaintiff pro se is to be served with a courtesy copy of this order at the address he includes on his otherwise disregarded filing at docket # 34.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.