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)

Download PDF
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?