The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 MARLON BLACHER, Case No.: 20cv1270-LAB-MDD
12 Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
13 v. MOTION TO DISQUALIFY
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
14 RALPH DIAZ, et al.,
Defendants.
15
[ECF No. 30]
16
17 Plaintiff Marlon Blacher is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
18 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
19 Plaintiff’s surviving claims include an Eighth Amendment claim against
20 Defendants Villa, Rohotas, Goodson, Allegre and Cowey, and a First
21 Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Villa. (ECF No. 5 at 8-13).
22 According to Plaintiff’s Complaint, all remaining Defendants are employed at
23 Calipatria State Prison, which is under the management of the California
24 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). (ECF No. 1 at 5-7,
25 13). All Defendants are represented by Deputy Attorney General Sylvie P.
26 Snyder.
1 General’s Office from serving as counsel for Defendants based on a conflict of
2 interest. (ECF No. 30). Plaintiff argues that there is a conflict of interest
3 because it is the duty of the Attorney General “to prosecute, not represent”
4 these Defendants who Plaintiff alleges violated multiple laws of the State.
5 (ECF No. 30 at 2). Plaintiff further argues that the interests of the
6 individual Defendants may conflict, which would erode the ability of the
7 attorneys for Defendants “to adequately and effectively represent,
8 simultaneously all the Defendants.” (Id.).
9 The Attorney General of California is the “chief law officer of the State”
10 and is charged with seeing “that the laws of the State are uniformly and
11 adequately enforced.” Cal. Const., Art. V, § 13. It is also the duty of the
12 Attorney General to “prosecute or defend all causes to which the State, or any
13 state officer is a party in his or her official capacity.” Cal. Gov. Code § 12512.
14 As such, the Attorney General may play a “dual role as representative of a
15 state agency and guardian of the public interest.” D'Amico v. Board of
16 Medical Examiners, 11 Cal.3d 1, 15 (Cal. 1974). An exceptional case may
17 cause the Attorney General to recognize a conflict and consent to special
18 counsel representing a state agency or officer, but no conflict arises in the
19 great majority of these cases. Id. (citing Cal. Gov. Code § 11040). “[U]nless
20 the Attorney General asserts the existence of such a conflict, it must be
21 concluded that the actions and determinations of the Attorney General in
22 such a lawsuit are made both as a representative of the public interest and as
23 counsel for the state agency or officer.” Id.
24 The Attorney General’s representation of Defendants in this case is
25 proper because Defendants were employed by a state agency, the California
26 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) during the time at
1 ||not have a duty to represent Plaintiffs interests in this matter. See
92 || Maeshack v. Avenal State Prison, No. 1:06-cv-00011-AWI-GSA- PC, 2010 U.S.
3 || Dist. LEXIS 20885, at *5-6 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2010) (“[T]he court finds no
4 ||authority that the A.G. has a duty to represent the interests of a prisoner in
5 state custody who brings an action against defendants who were acting under
6 ||color of state law.”).
7 Moreover, the Attorney General has not asserted a conflict of interest
8 ||here. Nor does this Court find the instant matter to be an exceptional case
9 || which would invoke a potential conflict of interest. Civil rights actions by
10 ||state prisoners against CDCR and its employees are “exceedingly common.”
11 || See, e.g., Glynn v. Cal. Dep't of Corr. & Rehab., No. 2:11-cv-3165 LKK KJN P,
12 ||2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172799, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2012). “These cases do
13 ||not present the type of ‘public interest’ case which would normally invoke a
14 || potential conflict of interest.” Id.
15 Plaintiff's second argument regarding the concurrent representation of
16 || Defendants does not warrant disqualification either. Plaintiff only states a
17 || hypothetical concern that the interests of the individual Defendants may
18 conflict “at some point during the course of this case.” (See ECF No. 30 at 2).
19 || Plaintiff provides no additional facts nor authority to support his position.
90 Court therefore sees no reason to question Defendants’ counsel’s
91 ||representation.
99 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs Motion to Disqualify
93 ||Attorneys for Defendants.
24 IT IS SO ORDERED.
95 ||Dated: April 12, 2021
Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin
27 United States Magistrate Judge