govinfo:USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01054-2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
GRANVILLE MARSHALL, M.D.,  
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF SUSANVILLE, COUNTY OF
LASSEN, BANNER COMMUNITY
HOSPITAL, DAVE ANDERSON and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants. 
CIV-S-04-1054 DFL/KJM
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER
Plaintiff Granville H. Marshall, M.D. brings multiple
constitutional claims against the City of Susanville, Lassen
County, Banner Community Hospital, and individual defendants.  On
July 20, 2006, the court issued a pretrial scheduling order
barring amendments to the pleadings without permission of the
court and a showing of good cause.  On August 14, Marshall filed
a second amended complaint, without his attorneys’ knowledge or
the court’s permission.  Defendants seek to dismiss or to strike
the second amended complaint and request sanctions.  Marshall’s
attorneys seek to withdraw from representation.  For the reasons
below, the court GRANTS the motions to strike, DENIES the motion
for sanctions, and GRANTS the motion to withdraw.  
Case 2:04-cv-01054-RRB-KJM     Document 86     Filed 11/22/06     Page 1 of 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2
I. 
The court grants the motion to strike the second amended
complaint.  Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(f) and
37(b)(2)(C), the court may strike pleadings filed by a party
contrary to the terms of a scheduling order.  Marshall failed to
comply with the July 20 pretrial scheduling order, neither
seeking the court’s permission nor showing good cause to file the
amended complaint.  Although Banner seeks sanctions for
Marshall’s unauthorized amendment, the court finds that the
minimal effort required to strike Marshall’s clearly improper
filing does not justify the requested fees.  The court,
therefore, denies the motion for sanctions.  
II.
The court grants Marshall’s attorneys’ motion to withdraw. 
Although Marshall filed an opposition to this motion on September
1, 2006, he stated at the November 1 hearing that he no longer
opposes withdrawal.  Moreover, the attorneys sufficiently
demonstrated a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship
based upon scheduling disputes and Marshall’s subsequent pro per
filing.  If Marshall intends to retain new counsel, the court
encourages him to do so promptly.  If he intends to represent
himself, the court urges him to study the procedural requirements
and schedule imposed by the July 20 pretrial scheduling order. 
III.
For the above stated reasons, the court GRANTS the motion to
strike the second amended complaint, DENIES the motion for
Case 2:04-cv-01054-RRB-KJM     Document 86     Filed 11/22/06     Page 2 of 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3
sanctions, and GRANTS the motion to withdraw. 
     IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 11/22/2006
DAVID F. LEVI
United States District Judge
Case 2:04-cv-01054-RRB-KJM     Document 86     Filed 11/22/06     Page 3 of 3

Passage view · GavelSight