Bumgardner v. Norris et al
ORDER denying 50 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; granting 51 Motion for Leave to Appear pro hac vice; granting 53 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Richard A Carpenter. Answer due 6/5/2009.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry L. Jones, Jr on 5/29/09. (bkp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION JIMMY DOYLE BUMGARDNER, ADC #103669 5:08V00321HLJ LARRY NORRIS, et al. ORDER This matter is before the Court on several motions of the parties. Plaintiff has filed a motion for appointment of counsel (DE #50). The Court notes that the factual allegations in the complaint are not complex, the legal issues are very straightforward, and plaintiff has thus far demonstrated adequate ability to place his claims before the Court. Therefore, the Court will deny plaintiff's request for counsel at this time. Attorney Paul T. Fulkerson, a member of the bar of the State of Indiana, has filed a motion for admission of counsel pro hac vice, for defendant Mid America Health, Inc. Pursuant to Local Rule 83.5, the Court will grant this motion, and will permit attorney Fulkerson to appear in this action without the designation of Arkansas counsel. Finally, defendant Richard Carpenter requests an extension of time in which to file an answer, which the Court will grant. Accordingly, IT IS THEREFORE, ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel (DE #50) is DENIED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion of attorney Paul T. Fulkerson for admission pro hac vice (DE #51) is hereby GRANTED. DEFENDANTS PLAINTIFF
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant Carpenter's motion for an extension of time (DE #53) is hereby GRANTED. Defendant shall file his answer or responsive pleading no later than June 5, 2009. IT IS SO ORDERED this 29day of May, 2009.
___________________________________ United States Magistrate Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?