Baltimore v. Haggins
Filing
70
ORDER GRANTING 69 Motion to Appoint Counsel Attorney signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 4/10/2013. Christopher Alan Nedeau for Robert Baltimore added. (Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ROBERT BALTIMORE,
12
13
Case No. 1:10-cv-00931 LJO JLT (PC)
Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
APPOINT COUNSEL
v.
(Doc. 69)
14
15
CHRISTOPHER HAGGINS
Defendant.
16
17
Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of civil
18
rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s renewed motion for appointment of
19
counsel. (Doc. 69)
20
On December 3, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion to appoint counsel. (Doc. 39)
On
21
December 6, 2012, the court denied the motion without prejudice. (Doc. 41) On March 27, 2013,
22
plaintiff filed another motion for appointment of counsel. (Doc. 69). At that time, the Court
23
could not make a determination whether Plaintiff was likely to succeed on the merits. However,
24
given the posture of the case at this time, it now appears Plaintiff has presented colorable claims
25
which, if proven, may provide a successful result.
26
Therefore, the Court finds that appointment of counsel for plaintiff is warranted at this
27
time. Veronica L. Harris and Christoper A. Nedeau have been selected from the court’s pro bono
28
attorney panel to represent plaintiff, and they have accepted the appointment.
1
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
2
1. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is granted; and
3
2. Veronica L. Harris and Christoper A. Nedeau are appointed as counsel in the
4
above entitled matter.
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
8
9
Dated:
April 10, 2013
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:
9j7khijed
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?