Shehee v. Flores, et al.

Filing 14

ORDER STRIKING 13 Motion to Appoint Counsel for Violation of Informational Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 01/9/2015. (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 GREGORY ELL SHEHEE, 11 12 13 14 Plaintiff, vs. 1:14-cv-00589-GSA-PC ORDER STRIKING MOTION FOR VIOLATION OF INFORMATIONAL ORDER (Doc. 13.) RAUL FLORES, et al., Defendants. 15 16 Gregory Ell Shehee (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se with this civil 17 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this 18 action on April 23, 2014. (Doc. 1.) 19 On January 5, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of counsel. (Doc. 13.) The 20 caption of Plaintiff‟s motion contains multiple case numbers, and case names, listed on 21 multiple pages, with an indication that Plaintiff expects the court to consider one motion for 22 multiple cases. (Doc. 13 at 1-3.) Plaintiff may not bring motions for multiple cases in this 23 manner. As Plaintiff was informed in the court‟s Informational Order issued on April 24, 2014: 24 “If a party has more than one case pending and wants to file the same document in more than one case, the party must provide a separate copy of that document, with the correct case number in the first page caption, for each case. Documents with more than one case number in the caption may be stricken/returned. . . . A document which is „stricken‟ will not be considered by the Court for any purpose.” 25 26 27 28 (Informational Order, Doc. 3 at 2 ¶II.A, F.) 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff‟s motion for appointment of 2 counsel, filed on January 5, 2015, is STRICKEN from the record for violation of the court‟s 3 informational order. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 9, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 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?