Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Silverman v. City and County of San Francisco

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

June 17, 2013

JACOB SILVERMAN, Plaintiff,
v.
THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al., Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL Docket 122.

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG, District Judge.

On April 1, 2011, Plaintiff Jacob Silverman ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se, commenced the instant action alleging federal claims under 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 as well as state law claims. Compl., Dkt. 1. On August 5, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion to substitute counsel, allowing Plaintiff to withdraw and attorneys Geri Lynn Green and Julien T. Swanson of The Law Offices of Geri Lynn Green, LC ("Green") to substitute as counsel of record on behalf of Plaintiff. Dkt. 46. On April 8, 2013, the Court granted Green's motion to withdraw as counsel. Dkt. 119. The Court granted the motion to withdraw upon having considered allegations that Plaintiff regularly failed to follow the advice of counsel, cooperate with counsel, and maintain contact with counsel. See Dkt. 119.

Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel. Dkt. 122. Having read and considered the papers filed in connection with this matter and being fully informed, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff's motion without prejudice, for the reasons stated below. The Court, in its discretion, finds this matter suitable for resolution without oral argument. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 78(b); N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).

I. DISCUSSION motion for appointment of counsel. As far as the Court is aware, Plaintiff is not a trained attorney, and therefore, is unfamiliar with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Evidence, and the Court's Civil Local Rules. However, the Court advises Plaintiff that compliance with the requirements set forth in those rules is mandatory. The Court further advises Plaintiff that proceeding pro se does not excuse his compliance with these rules. See Swimmer v. I.R.S. , 811 F.2d 1343, 1344 (9th Cir. 1987) ("[i]gnorance of court rules does not constitute excusable neglect, even if the litigant appears pro se.") (citation omitted); King v. Atiyeh , 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (a pro se party must follow the same rules as a party represented by counsel). Plaintiff should also be aware that a violation of the above rules could have serious consequences in terms of the outcome of this action. For example, Plaintiff's failure to follow the applicable procedural and evidentiary rules may result in the exclusion of some or all of the evidence or testimony he plans to present at trial. In addition, the failure to comply with these rules, or any order of this Court, may result in the imposition of sanctions, up to and including the dismissal of this lawsuit. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet , 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). Finally, Plaintiff is advised that the failure to prosecute this case may result in dismissal of this lawsuit. See Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. Forest Serv. , 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005).

II. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice.

2. This Order terminates Docket 122.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.