Jones v. Ballesteros et al

Filing 94

ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 12/28/15 ORDERING that the court has determined that plaintiff's claims and the status of the case warrantappointment of counsel. This case is REFERRED to the courts ADR and Pro Bono Coordinator, Suje an Park, for identification of counsel to represent plaintiff at the status conference set below and at trial. The trial confirmation hearing previously set for January 29, 2016, is VACATED, and a status conference is SET for February 4, 2016 at 2:30 p.m. before the undersigned. The request for a telephonic appearance, ECF No. 93 , is DENIED as MOOT.(Dillon, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEREMY JONES, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:10-cv-2661 KJM EFB P v. ORDER BALLESTEROS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Jeremy Jones is a prisoner who proceeds pro se in this civil rights action, 18 19 seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order of the assigned magistrate judge, a trial 20 confirmation hearing was set for January 29, 2016. Pretrial Order, ECF No. 92. 21 Upon review of the magistrate judge’s pretrial order and the pretrial statement, 22 ECF No. 86, the court has determined that plaintiff’s claims and the status of the case warrant 23 appointment of counsel. This case is REFERRED to the court’s ADR and Pro Bono Coordinator, 24 Sujean Park, for identification of counsel to represent plaintiff at the status conference set below 25 and at trial. The trial confirmation hearing previously set for January 29, 2016, is VACATED, 26 27 and a status conference is SET for February 4, 2016 at 2:30 p.m. before the undersigned. 28 ///// 1 1 The request for a telephonic appearance, ECF No. 93, is DENIED as MOOT. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 DATED: December 28, 2015. 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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?