Grandpre v. Gusman et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
PETER A. GRANDPRE
VERSUS
MARLIN GUSMAN ET AL.
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 22-1923
DIVISION (3)
ORDER AND REASONS
Peter A. Grandpre, proceeding pro se, filed this lawsuit on June 23, 2022.1
Grandpre, who has been incarcerated for the duration of the litigation, brought
numerous claims. The only ones that remain are for excessive force under § 1983.2
The parties consented to proceed before a U.S. Magistrate Judge. On April 17,
2025, attorney Timothy B. Holden enrolled as counsel of record for Grandpre.3 On
May 22, 2025, the Court issued a Scheduling Order setting a pretrial conference for
February 9, 2026, and a jury trial for March 9, 2026.4 On November 14, 2025, a
telephone status conference was held to discuss issues related to trial.5 During the
status conference, the Court granted Holden’s request for a one-week continuance of
the trial date to allow additional time for trial preparation.6
On January 26, 2026, a Motion to Withdraw Timothy B. Holden as Attorney
was filed.7 The motion violated multiple requirements of the Local Rules and
1 R. Doc. 1.
2 R. Docs. 5, 31.
3 R. Doc. 55.
4 R. Doc. 61.
5 R. Doc. 72.
6 Id.
7 R. Doc. 78.
Case 2:22-cv-01923-EJD Document 89 Filed 02/25/26 Page 1 of 4

2
appeared to refer to the defense of a criminal case, rather than the civil lawsuit in
which Grandpre is a plaintiff.8 	On January 28, 2026, the motion was denied for
multiple reasons, including its failure to provide evidence of service on Grandpre and
the potential prejudice associated with withdrawal at the late date.9
On February 4, 2026, a settlement conference was conducted before the Hon.
Michael B. North, U.S. Magistrate Judge.10 Holden participated in the settlement
conference.11 	Although 	negotiations 	were 	productive, 	no 	resolution 	could 	be
reached.12
Neither party appeared at the pretrial conference on February 9, 2026, and
they also failed to submit a pretrial order. Accordingly, the Court issued an Order to
Show Cause as to why counsel and their clients should not be sanctioned under the
Court’s inherent authority.13 The parties were ordered to submit memoranda by
February 12, 2026, and a hearing was set for February 24, 2026.14 The order
specifically required Holden to personally appear at the hearing.15 Defense counsel
submitted a memorandum in satisfaction of the show-cause order and were excused
from attending the hearing.16 On February 20, 2026, the Court issued a separate
8 Id.
9 R. Doc. 80.
10 R. Doc. 81.
11 Id.
12 Id.
13 R. Doc. 82.
14 Id.
15 Id.
16 R. Docs. 83 and 85.
Case 2:22-cv-01923-EJD Document 89 Filed 02/25/26 Page 2 of 4

3
order reiterating that Holden must personally appear on February 24, 2026.17 On the
same day, the Court issued an order instructed Grandpre to locate substitute counsel
or elect to proceed pro se by March 9, 2026.18 Also that day, the Court issued an order
continuing Grandpre’s jury trial to June 1, 2026, based on Holden’s failure to
participate 	in 	the 	pretrial 	conference, 	submit 	a 	pretrial 	order, 	or 	file 	any
memorandum showing cause for his failure to appear.19 Holden ultimately failed to
appear at the show-cause hearing on February 24, 2026, in violation of two orders
requiring his personal appearance.
In summary, after settlement negotiations fell through, Holden abandoned
Grandpre’s 	case 	shortly 	before 	trial. 	There 	is 	no 	indication 	that 	Holden 	has
communicated relevant 	developments 	to Grandpre 	since 	the 	conclusion 	of 	the
settlement conference. Holden’s actions in this matter warrant greater review than a
case-specific sanction. Indeed, the gravity of Holden’s misconduct and the resulting
threat of harm perhaps could warrant an interim suspension. The above-captioned
matter, however, appears to be Holden’s sole case in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana such that there is no need for immediate intervention
by the court en banc.20 Thus, the undersigned is providing a copy of this Order and
17 R. Doc. 85.
18 R. Doc. 86.
19 R. Doc. 87.
20 By separate Order, the Court is requiring Defendants to provide a current address
for Grandpre, after which the Clerk of Court will provide to Grandpre by mail copies
of the Court’s recent orders in this case.
Case 2:22-cv-01923-EJD Document 89 Filed 02/25/26 Page 3 of 4

4
Reasons to the Lawyer Disciplinary Committee for the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Court vacates its prior order (R. Doc. 80) and
GRANTS the Motion to Withdraw Timothy B. Holden as Attorney of Record (R. Doc.
78).
IT 	IS 	FURTHER 	ORDERED 	that 	Defendants 	are 	to 	file 	a 	notice 	of
Grandpre’s current address on or before February 26, 2026. Upon receipt of that
information, the Clerk of Court is to mail Grandpre copies of all documents filed in
the record beginning with R. Doc. 78 and continuing through the day before the mail
is sent.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Peter A. Grandpre must file a motion to
enroll new counsel or file a written statement indicating that he intends to represent
himself in this matter no later than Friday, March 27, 2026.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a telephone status conference is set for
Tuesday, April 7, 2026, at 10:00 a.m., before the undersigned judge. Parties are to
participate 	in 	the 	conference 	by 	dialing (833) 	990-9400 and entering 	Call 	ID
590722428.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 24 th day of February, 2026.
EVA J. DOSSIER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:22-cv-01923-EJD Document 89 Filed 02/25/26 Page 4 of 4