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)
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?