Cejas v. Blanas
ORDER signed by Chief Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski on 06/08/10 ORDERING that plf's 74 Motion to Appoint Counsel is GRANTED; Daniel Bookin is APPOINTED as pro bono counsel in this matter; plf's 82 Motion for jury instructions is DENIED as unnecessary; plf's 83 Motion for Extension of Time to file a list of exhibits is GRANTED; list is due 06/21/10. (Benson, A.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * ANDREW A. CEJAS, * * Plaintiff, * * v. * * MARK IWASA, * * Defendant. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
Plaintiff Andrew Cejas is a California state prisoner proceeding in a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This court has reviewed the record and finds that appointment of counsel is warranted. Daniel Bookin has been selected from the court's pro bono attorney panel and is appointed as pro bono counsel in this matter. The court thanks counsel for accepting the appointment. IT IS ORDERED: 1. Daniel Bookin is appointed as pro bono counsel in this matter.
page 2 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order upon Plaintiff Andrew Cejas and upon Daniel Bookin, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111. 3. In light of this appointment, Plaintiff's May 27, 2010 motion for this court to order that jury instructions be supplied to him is denied as unnecessary. 4. Plaintiff's June 7, 2010 motion for an extension of time to file a list of exhibits is granted. This list is due by June 21, 2010. Although Plaintiff's motion is untimely, as the deadline to file a list of witnesses and exhibits was June 1, 2010, the motion is granted in light of the appointment of counsel and the May 26, 2010 order granting Plaintiff's motion to compel. June 8, 2010
________________________ ALEX KOZINSKI Chief Circuit Judge Sitting by designation
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?