Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Campbell v. Woodward

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

July 26, 2018

Campbell
v.
Woodward, M.D.

          LETTER ORDER/OPINION

          Honorable Steve Mannion, U.S.M.J.

         Dear Counsel:

         Before the Court is the motion by Michael A. Innes, Esq. and Geoffrey W. Castello, Esq. to withdraw as pro bono counsel for Plaintiff Hydeacarr Campbell in the above-captioned matter.[1]Counsel also requested an extension of time to oppose Defendant Dr. Ralph Woodward's pending summary judgment motion. Neither motion has been opposed. Upon careful consideration of the docket and the motion record, for the reasons set forth below, the motion to withdraw is DENIED and the request for an extension of time to oppose the pending summary judgment motion is GRANTED.

         I. MAGISTRATE JUDGE AUTHORITY

         Magistrate judges are authorized to decide any non-dispositive motion designated by the Court.[2] This District specifies that magistrate judges may determine all non-dispositive pre-trial motions which includes motions to withdraw.[3] Decisions by magistrate judges must be upheld unless “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”[4]

         II. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         Mr. Campbell filed his prisoner civil rights complaint on May 7, 2012.[5] The Court has since dismissed certain claims, but allowed others to go forward.[6] His application for assignment of pro bono counsel was approved by the Honorable Madeline Cox Arleo on March 26, 2014.[7]Mr. Innes was appointed as pro bono counsel on August 18, 2015.[8] Mr. Castello entered his appearance for Mr. Campbell on March 2, 2017.[9]

         On March 14, 2018, Dr. Ralph Woodward moved for summary judgment seeking the dismissal of all claims by Mr. Campbell against him.[10] On May 15, 2018, Messrs. Innes and Castello moved to withdraw as counsel and for an extension of time for Mr. Campbell to oppose the summary judgment motion.[11]

         III. STANDARD FOR WITHDRAWAL

         Our Local Civil Rules provide, in pertinent part, that “[u]nless other counsel is substituted, no attorney may withdraw an appearance except by leave of Court.”[12] “[T]he decision of whether or not to permit withdrawal is within the discretion of the court.”[13] “In granting or denying a motion to withdraw, a court will consider factors such as: [(a)] the reasons why withdrawal is sought; (b) the prejudice withdrawal may cause to other litigants; (c) the harm withdrawal might cause to the administration of justice; and (d) the degree to which withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case.”[14]

         “The Rules of Professional Conduct of the American Bar Association as revised by the New Jersey Supreme Court shall govern the conduct of the members of the bar admitted to practice in this Court, subject to such modifications as may be required or permitted by Federal statute, regulation, court rule or decision of law.”[15] Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16 sets forth the situations in which an attorney may or, alternatively, must, withdraw from the representation of a client. Subsection (a) of that Rule, which governs mandatory withdrawal, states, in pertinent part, that an attorney “shall withdraw from the representation of a client if . . . (1) the representation will result in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law; … or (3) the lawyer is discharged.”[16] Subsection (b), which governs permissive withdrawal, provides, in relevant part:

[A] lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if:…
(4) the client insists upon taking action that the lawyer considers repugnant or with which the lawyer has a fundamental disagreement;…; or…
(7) other good cause for withdrawal exists.[17]

         IV. DISCUSSION & ANALYSIS

         Messrs. Innes and Castello move to withdraw as pro bono counsel for Mr. Campbell. Mr. Campbell has neither joined in the motion, nor indicated a desire to proceed pro se. Thus, the Local Civil Rule requirement for substituted counsel has not been met.[18] Furthermore, because Mr. Campbell has not terminated his relationship with counsel and there is no allegation that continued representation “will result in violation ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.