(PC)Marion II v. Oregel et al

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
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CARL BENTLY MARION II,
Plaintiff,
v.
EDGAR OREGEL, et al.
Defendants.
_____________________________________/
Case No. 1:24-cv-00872-KES-SKO
ORDER APPROVING SUBSTITUTION
OF COUNSEL; DIRECTING THE
CLERK TO TERMINATE ATTORNEY
HAYDEN; DISCHARGING ATTORNEY
HAYDEN’S OBLIGATION TO SERVE
PLAINTIFF; REQUIRING ATTORNEY
HANAGAN TO SERVE A COPY OF
THIS ORDER ON PLAINTIFF;
REQUIRING A STATUS UPDATE
REGARDING THE MOTION FOR
DEFAULT; AND EXTENDING
PLAINTIFF’S TIME TO SERVE
DEFENDANT UNDER RULE 4(m)
(Docs. 15, 18, 19)
The Court is in receipt of the Notice of Appearance by Michael John Hanagan on behalf of
Plaintiff Carl Bently Marion III. (Doc. 19). In light of the Notice, in which Attorney Hanagan
represents that he wishes to substitute in for Attorney Michael R. Hayden, pursuant to Eastern
District of California Local Rules 182(b) and (d), the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to terminate
Attorney Hayden as counsel for Plaintiff.
In light of this substitution of counsel, Attorney Hayden’s obligation to serve Plaintiff with
a notice of the Court’s prior order denying Attorney Hayden’s request to withdraw as counsel, (see

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
27
28
2
Docs. 15, 18), is DISCHARGED. Instead, Attorney Hanagan is ORDERED to file on the docket
proof of service of this order on Plaintiff by no later than December 17, 2025.
The Court is also in receipt of Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment. (Doc. 17). The Court
makes the following observations: (1) while there was an indication of summons prior to the Court’s
completion of the mandatory screening process, there is no indication on the docket that Defendant
Laura Merritt was served upon completion of the screening process, (see Doc. 13); and (2) Plaintiff
did not request, nor has there been entered, a clerk’s entry of default. In light of the foregoing and
Plaintiff’s new representation, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to, within seven (7) days, either (1) file
a status update indicating that he wishes to proceed with the motion for default; or (2) withdraw the
motion for default.
Finally, in light of the substitution of counsel, which the Court finds provides good cause,
the Court sua sponte EXTENDS the time limit for service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
4(m) from September 3, 2025 to March 3, 2026. The Court advises Plaintiff that, absent a further
finding of good cause. this Court will recommend dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 4(m) if
Defendant is not served by March 3, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 15, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE