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)
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?