(PC) Robinson v. Scottini

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAVAUGHN ROBINSON, No. 2:22-cv-1641 DC CSK P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SCOTTINI, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. On November 26, 18 2024, the Court received a document styled “Motion to Reconsider,” filed by a prisoner named 19 Durrell Puckett “as the attorney of record.” (ECF No. 59.) Mr. Puckett is not an attorney 20 licensed by the State of California1 and cannot represent a fellow prisoner. See Johns v. County 21 of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997) (“While a non-attorney may appear pro se on his 22 own behalf, he has no authority to appear as an attorney for others than himself”) (internal 23 quotations and citation omitted); see also Jorss v. Schwarzenegger, 168 F. App’x 825, 826 (9th 24 Cir. 2006) (finding the district court properly dismissed the complaint because the pro se prisoner 25 plaintiff could not represent others). In the future, Mr. Puckett shall refrain from filing 26 documents in this action. 27 1 The State Bar of California maintains a list of all attorneys licensed to practice law in the State 28 of California. https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/LicenseeSearch/ (accessed Dec. 2, 2024). 1 Usually, the Court would strike a filing made by another prisoner on behalf of the 2 plaintiff. However, the motion is also signed by plaintiff. Therefore, the Court will address the 3 motion. 4 First, although the motion is styled as a motion for reconsideration, the motion does not 5 identify what specific order plaintiff seeks to have reconsidered. The motion does not comply 6 with the Eastern District’s Local Rules, which require the moving party to address the following: 7 (1) when and to what Judge or Magistrate Judge the prior motion was made; 8 (2) what ruling, decision, or order was made thereon; 9 (3) what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist 10 which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion; and 11 (4) why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of the 12 prior motion. 13 Local Rule 230(j). Further, to the extent plaintiff asks the Court to view video footage at this 14 time, plaintiff’s request is denied. There is no dispositive motion pending, or recently decided, 15 and the parties have filed pretrial statements. Thus, the motion for reconsideration is denied 16 without prejudice. 17 Second, plaintiff asks the Court to schedule a settlement conference. In his pretrial 18 statement, defendant indicated he would be amenable to attending a settlement conference before 19 this case is set for trial. (ECF No. 57 at 1, 8.) Therefore, Magistrate Judge Allison Claire was 20 randomly assigned to hold a settlement conference in this case. Within fourteen days from the 21 date of this order, counsel for defendant shall contact Judge Claire’s courtroom deputy, Jonathan 22 Anderson, (916) 930-4199 or janderson@caed.uscourts.gov, to schedule a settlement conference 23 in this action. 24 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 25 1. Inmate Durrell Puckett, #G-05549, shall refrain from filing documents in this case. 26 2. In addition to the parties, the Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this 27 order on Durrell Puckett, #G-05549, California State Prison, Corcoran, P.O. Box 28 3476, Corcoran, CA 93212. 1 3. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 59) is denied. 2 4. Plaintiffs request to set the matter for settlement conference (ECF No. 59) is granted. 3 Within fourteen days from the date of this order, counsel for defendant shall contact 4 Judge Claire’s courtroom deputy, Jonathan Anderson, (916) 930-4199 or 5 janderson@caed.uscourts.gov, to schedule a settlement conference in this action. 6 7 || Dated: December 4, 2024 4 aA Cn Ye \L CHI SOO KIM ? UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 || //robi1641.nonp 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28