Mario Molina v. Holland et al

Filing 64

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Pro Bono Counsel 63 , signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 9/7/2017: Motion is DENIED without prejudice. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

MARIO MOLINA,
Plaintiff,

13
v.

14
15

K. HOLLAND, et al.,

Case No. 1:15-cv-01260-DAD-EPG (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO
COUNSEL
(ECF NO. 63)

Defendants.

16
17
18
19

Mario Molina (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

20

with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 5, 2017, Plaintiff

21

filed a motion for appointment of pro bono counsel. (ECF No. 63).

22

This is Plaintiff’s second motion for appointment of bro bono counsel in less than three

23

months. While Plaintiff was advised that he could renew the motion, he was also advised that it

24

was to be at a “later stage of the proceedings.” (ECF No. 58, p. 2). It appears that nothing has

25

changed since Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of pro bono counsel (there was, and still is,

26

an upcoming evidentiary hearing on the issue of exhaustion). Accordingly, for the reasons laid

27

out in the Court’s prior order (id.), Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of pro bono counsel will be

28

denied.
1

1
2
3
4

Plaintiff is advised that he is not precluded from renewing the motion for appointment of pro
bono counsel at a later stage of the proceedings.
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of pro
bono counsel is DENIED without prejudice.

5
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 7, 2017

/s/
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