William Milton, et al. v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 WILLIAM MILTON, et al., Case No. 23-cv-00582-JST

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER STRIKING FILINGS BY 9 v. PLAINTIFF’S FORMER ATTORNEY

10 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF Re: ECF Nos. 97, 98 CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION 11 CTF- SOLEDAD, et al., Defendants. 12 13

14 On April 28, 2026, Attorney Elliott N. Tiomkin filed a motion to substitute as counsel for 15 William Pardue. ECF No. 86. In the motion, Tiomkin noted that Pardue’s previous counsel, 16 Benjamin Pavone, had not consented to the substitution. Id. at 1. Pavone filed an objection to the 17 motion, claiming that he had not heard directly from Pardue about the substitution and that 18 Tiomkin was not qualified to take on the representation. ECF No. 87. The Court entered an order 19 requiring Tiomkin to file a declaration from Pardue that he consented to the substitution, and 20 Tiomkin did so. ECF Nos. 89, 90. The Court then granted the substitution. ECF No. 95. After 21 the substitution was granted, Pavone filed a motion to appoint an expert to assess Pardue’s 22 competency for choosing to be represented by Tiomkin and a motion to shorten time on the 23 competency motion. ECF Nos. 97, 98. 24 “It is axiomatic that an attorney cannot continue to represent a client in a lawsuit in 25 contravention of that client's explicit instruction to the contrary.” Trulis v. Barton, 107 F.3d 685, 26 693 (9th Cir. 1995). Pardue has affirmed that he wishes to be represented by Tiomkin and 27 repeatedly requested that Pavone stop contacting him. ECF No. 90 at 1. Pardue has exercised his 1 “almost ‘unfettered right’ to choose counsel, and the ‘right to discharge an attorney.’” Diamond 2 || Tr. of Est. of Howrey LLP v. Hogan Lovells US LLP, 950 F.3d 1200, 1210 (9th Cir. 2020) (citing 3 || Inre Mance, 980 A.2d 1196, 1203 (D.C. 2009). Accordingly, Pavone has no authority to file 4 || anything on Pardue’s behalf. 5 “[D]istrict courts have inherent power to control their own dockets, including the power to 6 || strike items from the docket.” Queensridge Towers LLC vy. Allianz Glob. Risks US Ins. Co., No. 7 2:13-CR-197 JCM PAL, 2015 WL 1403479, at *1 (D. Nev. Mar. 26, 2015) (citing Ready Tramp., 8 || Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404 (9th Cir.2010)). Because attorney Pavone was not 9 || counsel of record at the time he filed them, the motions at ECF Nos. 97 and 98 are hereby stricken 10 || from the docket. 1] IT IS SO ORDERED

a 12 Dated: June 11, 2026 . ,O 8 JON S. TIGA! 14 United States District Judge

15 16

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28