Myrick v. Suwe

CourtDistrict Court, D. Nevada
DecidedApril 21, 2025
Docket3:24-cv-00108
StatusUnknown

This text of Myrick v. Suwe (Myrick v. Suwe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Myrick v. Suwe, (D. Nev. 2025).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3

4 GREGORY MYRICK, Case No. 3:24-cv-00108-ART-CSD

5 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 6 SUWE, et al., 7 Defendants. 8

9 Plaintiff Gregory Myrick filed this civil-rights action as a pro se party under 42 10 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court screened Myrick’s pro se complaint and found that he stated 11 certain colorable claims. (ECF No. 10.) Counsel then entered an appearance on Myrick’s 12 behalf (ECF No. 18), before filing a motion to withdraw as attorney of record almost three 13 weeks later. (ECF No. 22.) There are several matters for the Court to address before this 14 case can proceed. 15 I. Motion to Withdraw (ECF No. 22) 16 The Court issued an Order giving Myrick a deadline of April 11, 2025, to file an 17 optional response to his counsel’s motion to withdraw. (ECF No. 23.) Plaintiff did not file 18 a response by the deadline. 19 There is no general right to counsel in civil cases. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 20 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). District courts have broad discretion to rule on a motion to 21 withdraw as counsel. See LaGrand v. Stewart, 133 F.3d 1253, 1269 (9th Cir. 1998). “In 22 considering such a motion, courts may consider: (1) the reasons why withdrawal is 23 sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal may cause to other litigants; (3) the harm withdrawal 24 might cause to the administration of justice; and (4) the degree to which withdrawal will 25 delay the resolution of the case.” Williams v. Cnty. of Fresno, 562 F. Supp. 3d 1032, 1035 26 (E.D. Cal. 2021) (citation and quotation marks omitted). This Court’s local rules 27 emphasize the importance of considering whether withdrawal will delay proceedings 28 when ruling on such a motion. See Nev. LR IA 11-6(e) (“Except for good cause shown, 2 or any hearing in the case.”). 3 The Court grants the motion. Counsel states that “an irretrievable breakdown in 4 communication between attorney and client ha[s] resulted in a fundamental disagreement 5 as to the litigation of this matter.” (ECF No. 22 at 2.) Plaintiff had an opportunity to file a 6 response taking issue with this statement, but he did not do so. Also, this case is still at 7 the preservice stage, and counsel submitted no motions or filings on Myrick’s behalf 8 during the brief window between entering an appearance and filing a motion to withdraw, 9 so it does no appear that withdrawal will prejudice other litigants, harm the administration 10 of justice, or delay resolution of the case. (But see ECF No. 24 (application to proceed in 11 forma pauperis filed by Myrick himself after the motion to withdraw).) The Court therefore 12 permits counsel to withdraw, and Plaintiff is now a pro se party once again. 13 II. Filing Fee and IFP Application (ECF No. 24) 14 In a prior Order, having previously denied Myrick’s application to proceed in forma 15 pauperis (“IFP”), the Court directed Myrick to pay the $405 filing fee in one lump sum by 16 May 16, 2025. (ECF No. 23 at 1.) Rather than pay the fee, Myrick filed a new IFP 17 application. (ECF No. 24.) But this IFP application is incomplete, as Plaintiff did not 18 include the financial documents required by that form. The Court now grants Myrick the 19 option of either paying the full $405 filing fee or filing a fully complete IFP application by 20 May 16, 2025. 21 To file a fully complete IFP application, an inmate must submit all three of the 22 following documents to the Court: (1) a completed IFP application, which is pages 1-3 of 23 the Court’s approved form, that is properly signed by the inmate twice on page 3; (2) a 24 completed Financial Certificate, which is page 4 of the Court’s approved form, that is 25 properly signed by both the inmate and a prison or jail official; and (3) a copy of the 26 inmate’s prison or jail trust fund account statement for the previous six-month 27 period. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), (2); Nev. LSR 1-2. IFP status does not relieve an 28 2 installments. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). 3 III. Plaintiff’s Address 4 Finally, the Court notes that the address listed for Plaintiff on the docket is not 5 current. Plaintiff last updated his address to the Pioche Conservation Camp (ECF No. 6 15), but his most recent filing reflects that he is now located at High Desert State Prison. 7 (See ECF No. 24 at 3.) Now that Plaintiff is a pro se party again, he is reminded that he 8 must “immediately file with the court written notification of any change of mailing address, 9 email address, telephone number.” Nev. LR IA 3-1. Failure to do so “may result in the 10 dismissal of the action, entry of default judgment, or other sanctions as deemed 11 appropriate by the court.” Id. The Court grants Myrick until May 16, 2025, to file his 12 updated address with the Court. 13 IV. Conclusion 14 It is therefore ordered that the motion to withdraw as attorney of record filed by 15 Myrick’s counsel (ECF No. 22) is granted. Myrick is now a pro se party once again. 16 It is further ordered that Myrick has until May 16, 2025, to either pay the full $405 17 filing fee or file a complete IFP application with all three required documents: (1) a 18 completed IFP application with his two signatures on page 3; (2) a completed financial 19 certificate that is signed both by Myrick and the prison or jail official; and (3) a copy of 20 Myrick’s inmate trust fund account statement for the previous six-month period. 21 It is further ordered that Myrick has until May 16, 2025, to file his updated address 22 with the Court. 23 It is further ordered that this action will be subject to dismissal without prejudice if 24 Plaintiff fails to timely comply with this Order. 25 It is further ordered that, if Plaintiff timely complies with this Order, this case will be 26 eligible for participation in the Court’s Inmate Early Mediation Program. 27 The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to send Myrick the approved IFP application 28 and the instructions for completing that application. 1 The Clerk of Court is further directed to send a courtesy copy of this Order to Myrick 2 || at High Desert State Prison. 3 DATED: April 21, 2025. 4 CS Ox. 6 UNITED STATES MAGIST JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Rivera-Maldonado
560 F.3d 16 (First Circuit, 2009)
LaGrand v. Stewart
133 F.3d 1253 (Ninth Circuit, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Myrick v. Suwe, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/myrick-v-suwe-nvd-2025.