Larsgard v. Unknown Parties

Filing 37

ORDER denying 26 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; denying 30 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; granting 31 Motion for clarification. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 12/5/2012.(NVO)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Liv H. Larsgard,

No. CV12-8013 PCT DGC
Plaintiff,

10

ORDER

11

v.

12

Michael Mendoza, et al.,
Defendant.

13
14

Defendants have filed motions seeking clarification of which amended complaint

15

they should answer. Docs. 31, 32. Plaintiff Liv H. Larsgard has filed two motions for

16

appointment of counsel. Docs. 26, 30.

17

The operative complaint in this case is the Second Amended Complaint filed on

18

October 12, 2012. Doc. 25. That was the deadline set by the Court for filing an amended

19

complaint.

20

(Doc. 27), was untimely under the Court’s order, was filed without leave of Court, and

21

was filed pro per by a plaintiff who is represented by counsel in this case. Parties

22

represented by counsel may not make pro per filings. See Mullins v. Schriro, No. CV-06-

23

1148-PHX-NVW, 2008 WL 1805443, at *1 (D. Ariz., Apr. 18, 2008); United States v.

24

Kienenberger, 13 F.3d 1354, 1356 (9th Cir.1994); LRCiv 83.3(c)(2).

25
26
27
28

Doc. 24.

The Second Amended Complaint filed on October 15, 2012

Plaintiff has filed two motions for appointment of counsel. Docs. 26, 30. They
are denied because counsel has appeared for her in this case. See Docs. 25, 29.

1

IT IS ORDERED:

2

1.

Defendants’ motion for clarification (Doc. 31) is granted.

3

2.

Plaintiff’s motions for appointment of counsel (Docs. 26, 30) are denied.

4

Dated this 5th day of December, 2012.

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 ‐