Sturgis v. Rupf et al
Filing
74
ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting 73 Motion to Appoint Counsel (Attachments: # 1 certificate of service) (mpb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/13/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
LAMOS WAYNE STURGIS,
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
15
DEPUTY SHERIFF DROLLETE, et al.,
16
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. C 10-3680 LHK (PR)
ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
APPOINT COUNSEL
(Docket No. 73)
17
Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed an amended pro se prisoner complaint under 42 U.S.C.
18
§ 1983, arguing that Defendants used excessive force upon him, in violation of the Eighth
19
Amendment. On January 24, 2012, the Court denied Defendants’ motion for summary
20
judgment. The case was then referred to Magistrate Judge Nandor Vadas for mediation. On
21
May 22, 2012, Judge Vadas reported that the case did not settle.
22
Plaintiff has moved for appointment of counsel. It appears that the case will be tried.
23
The Court concludes that counsel should be appointed, and grants Plaintiff’s motion. This
24
matter is referred to the Federal Pro Bono Project to find counsel.
25
The Clerk shall forward to the Federal Pro Bono Project: (i) a copy of this order, (ii) a
26
copy of the docket sheet, and (iii) a copy of the operative complaint and relevant Court orders.
27
Upon an attorney being located to represent Plaintiff, that attorney shall be appointed as counsel
28
Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel
G:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\CR.10\Sturgis680refprobono.wpd
1
for Plaintiff in this matter until further order of the Court. All proceedings in this action are
2
stayed until four weeks from the date an attorney is appointed to represent Plaintiff.
3
4
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:
6/12/12
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel
G:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\CR.10\Sturgis680refprobono.wpd
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?