Sturgis v. Rupf et al
Filing
75
ORDER APPOINTING PRO BONO COUNSEL. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 6/27/12. (Attachments: # 1 cert of service)(mpb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/28/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
LAMOS WAYNE STURGIS,
11
Plaintiff,
12
v.
13
14
DEPUTY SHERIFF DROLLETE, et al.,
15
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. C 10-3680 LHK (PR)
ORDER APPOINTING PRO BONO
COUNSEL
16
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. After
21
settlement proceedings proved unsuccessful, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to appoint
22
counsel and referred this matter to the Federal Pro Bono Project of the Volunteer Legal Services
23
Program (“VLSP”) to locate counsel.
24
The VLSP has informed the Court that David C. Kiernan of the Jones Day law firm, 555
25
California Street, 26th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104, (415) 875-5745, has agreed to serve as
26
appointed pro bono counsel for Plaintiff. Thus, David C. Kiernan is hereby APPOINTED as
27
counsel for Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) and the Court’s Federal Pro Bono
28
Project guidelines. The scope of this referral shall be for all purposes for the duration of the
Order Appointing Pro Bono Counsel
G:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\CR.10\Sturgis680ApptCounsel.wpd
1
2
3
4
5
6
case.
The Clerk shall set this matter for a case management conference within 90 days of the
filing date of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 6/27/12
LUCY H. KOH
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
Order Appointing Pro Bono Counsel
G:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\CR.10\Sturgis680ApptCounsel.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?