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)
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?