IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 28, 2012
IVAN KILGORE, PLAINTIFF,
RICHARD MANDEVILLE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding with court-appointed counsel, in a civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Discovery closed in this action on July 27, 2012, and the dispositive motion deadline is September 29, 2012. (See Dkt. No. 115.) On August 13, 2012, plaintiff, acting in pro se, filed a document wherein he states that he contemporaneously sent a letter to his counsel, requesting review of the transcripts of defendants' depositions. Plaintiff states in pertinent part (Dkt. No. 120 at 1):
I have reason to believe that appointed counsel . . . may have been incompetent during the deposition hearing due to a recent letter I received from him . . . . Upon review of these depositions, there is a possibility I will move for a substitution of counsel or reinstatement of my pro se status or co-counsel status. [¶] I am hereby requesting a 30-day grace period so as to determine whether or not appointed counsel competantly (sic) represented this action during the deposition hearing.
Plaintiff's request will be denied without prejudice -- plaintiff's request to review defendants' deposition transcripts has been properly directed to plaintiff's counsel; there are no imminent deadlines in this action; and, while plaintiff is legally represented, he is required to appear in this court only through his appointed counsel.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's request for a thirty-day "grace period" (Dkt. No. 120), is denied without prejudice.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.