Brown v. Michaelis

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 MAURICE ANTHONY BROWN, CASE NO. 2:22-cv-00828-LK-GJL 11 Plaintiff, v. ORDER ON MOTION FOR 12 DENIAL OF CHANGE IN JACI MICHAELIS, et al., COUNSEL 13 Defendants. 14

15 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Denial of Change in Counsel. 16 Dkt. 61. Although the Motion is styled as one to deny change in counsel, Plaintiff is really 17 moving to disqualify defense counsel. He requests that the Office of the Attorney General be 18 precluded from representing Defendants in this suit based on an “inherent conflict of interest.” 19 Id. As for the source of that conflict, Plaintiff states that he has raised many grievances against 20 the Office of the Attorney General, including filing at least one lawsuit. 21 Generally, “‘courts do not disqualify an attorney on the grounds of conflict of interest 22 unless the former client moves for disqualification.’” Kasza v. Browner, 133 F.3d 1159, 1171 23 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting United States v. Rogers, 9 F.3d 1025, 1031 (2d Cir. 1993)); see also 24 1 Wilson v. California Dept. of Corr., 2007 WL 173789 (E.D. Cal. 2007). Plaintiff may have been 2 involved in litigation against the Office of the Attorney General; however, he is not a former 3 client of that Office nor of the attorneys he seeks to disqualify. As a result, he lacks standing to 4 move for disqualification. Even if Plaintiff had standing to file his Motion, it contains no more

5 than conclusory statements that a conflict exists and allegations of poor case management against 6 the Office as a whole. This is insufficient to disqualify defense counsel from this case. 7 Accordingly, the Motion (Dkt. 61) is DENIED. 8 Dated this 16th day of January, 2024. 9 A 10 11 Grady J. Leupold United States Magistrate Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24