Gray v. Johnson et al
Filing
288
ORDER denying as premature 287 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 11/6/2017. (Lundstrom, T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DANA GRAY,
12
13
14
15
Plaintiff,
vs.
1:13-cv-01473-DAD-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING MOTION AS
PREMATURE
(ECF No. 287.)
ROMERO, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
18
Dana Gray (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
19
On November 3, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of counsel to represent
20
her at a settlement conference after Plaintiff’s motion for default is resolved, and in the event
21
that the motion for default is granted. (ECF No. 287.) In the alternative, Plaintiff requests the
22
attendance of a peer advocate at the settlement conference. (Id.)
23
The court disfavors motions such as this one, requesting prospective relief conditioned
24
on a series of events which may or may not happen in the future. Plaintiff’s motion is based on
25
speculation that her pending motion for default will be granted and a settlement conference will
26
take place afterward. Such events may or may not happen in the future. 1 Plaintiff’s motion is
27
28
1
Findings and recommendations to deny Plaintiff’s motion for default were entered on October
20, 2017, and the time for filing objections has not expired. (ECF No. 283.)
1
1
premature and shall be denied as such. However, Plaintiff is not precluded from renewing the
2
motion at a later stage of the proceedings.
3
4
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion, filed on November 3, 2017, is DENIED as premature,
without prejudice.
5
6
7
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
November 6, 2017
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
9
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?