Hudson v. Richmond Police Department
Filing
88
ORDER REFERRING PLAINTIFF TO FEDERAL PRO BONO PROJECT 84 87 . (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 3/3/2017) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/3/2017: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (tfS, COURT STAFF).
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
TORIANO GERMAINE HUDSON,
Plaintiff,
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Case No. 15-cv-00787-SI
ORDER REFERRING PLAINTIFF TO
FEDERAL PRO BONO PROJECT
v.
Re: Dkt. Nos. 84, 87
DIAZ, et al.,
Defendants.
12
13
14
Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel to represent him in this action is GRANTED.
15
(Dkt. Nos. 84, 87.) Plaintiff, having requested and being in need of counsel to assist him in this
16
matter, plaintiff is referred to the Federal Pro Bono Project in the manner set forth below so that an
17
attorney may be located for him:
18
(1)
19
20
21
22
23
The clerk shall forward to the Federal Pro Bono Project: (a) a copy of this
order and (b) a memorandum outlining the facts and procedural posture of the action.
(2)
Upon an attorney being located to represent plaintiff, that attorney shall be
appointed as counsel for plaintiff in this matter until further order of the court.
(3)
All proceedings in this action are stayed until four weeks from the date an
attorney is appointed to represent plaintiff in this action.
24
Plaintiff’s motion at Docket No. 84 is ambiguous as to whether plaintiff wants an attorney
25
for this action or for some other action he wants to file. The court is not granting plaintiff’s
26
27
28
1
request for appointment of counsel to help him with some other unidentified action he may want
2
to file. Counsel is only being sought for this action.
3
4
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 3, 2017
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
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?