Fisher v. Director of OPS of CDCR

Filing 33

ORDER denying 32 Motion Accepting Appointment of Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 11/24/2014. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GARY FRANCIS FISHER, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. DIRECTOR OF OPS OF CDCR, Defendant. 16 17 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:14-cv-00901-BAM PC ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION ACCEPTING APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (ECF No. 32) Plaintiff Gary Francis Fisher (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on June 19 20, 2013, in the Northern District of California. On June 2, 2014, the Northern District court reopened 20 the action and directed Plaintiff to file a complaint. (ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff filed an amended 21 complaint on June 10, 2014. (ECF No. 18.) On the same date, the matter was transferred to this 22 Court. (ECF No. 19.) 23 On August 15, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 24 30.) Following consideration of Plaintiff’s request, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for the 25 appointment of counsel without prejudice on October 7, 2014. (ECF No. 31.) 26 On November 20, 2014, Plaintiff filed the document titled “Motion Accepting Appointment of 27 Counsel.” In the motion, Plaintiff asserts that he was “given counsel a month or so back.” (ECF No. 28 32.) Plaintiff is incorrect. As noted above, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion requesting the 1 1 appointment of counsel on October 7, 2014. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion accepting the 2 appointment of counsel is HEREBY DENIED as moot. 3 4 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Barbara November 24, 2014 A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 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?