Navarro v. Herdon et al

Filing 86

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 1/30/13 ORDERING that plaintiff's 1/22/13 motion for appointment of counsel 85 , is denied without prejudice. (Becknal, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MARIO NAVARRO, Plaintiff, 11 12 13 14 15 16 No. 2:09-cv-1878 KJM KJN P vs. DEBRA HERNDON, et al., Defendants. ORDER / Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, in an action brought under 42 17 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 7, 2012, the undersigned recommended that this action proceed on 18 plaintiff’s denial of access claims against defendants Grannis and O’Brien (Dkt. No. 84), in 19 addition to the other claims previously identified by the undersigned and district judge (Dkt. Nos. 20 78, 79). Plaintiff now requests appointment of counsel. 21 Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel is premature. This court is unable 22 to identify the cognizable claims in this action until the district judge has an opportunity to 23 review the undersigned’s supplemental findings and recommendations. This factor is important 24 in assessing plaintiff’s request for counsel, which includes an assessment of plaintiff’s likelihood 25 of success on the merits of his claims, as well as plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims pro se 26 in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th 1 1 Cir. 2009). Plaintiff may renew his request after the district judge has ruled on the supplemental 2 findings and recommendations. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s January 22, 2013 motion 3 4 for appointment of counsel (Docket No. 85), is denied without prejudice. 5 DATED: January 30, 2013 6 _____________________________________ KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 nava1878.31.kjn 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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?