Parrish v. Solis et al
Filing
86
ORDER APPOINTING PRO BONO COUNSEL. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 3/11/13. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(mpb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/12/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
KAHEAL PARRISH,
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
15
16
A. SOLIS, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. C 11-1438 LHK (PR)
ORDER APPOINTING PRO BONO
COUNSEL
17
18
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
19
On August 28, 2012, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion for
20
summary judgment. The case was then referred to Magistrate Judge Nandor Vadas for
21
mediation. After settlement proceedings proved unsuccessful, the Court granted Plaintiff’s
22
motion to appoint counsel and referred this matter to the Federal Pro Bono Project of the
23
Volunteer Legal Services Program (“VLSP”) to locate counsel.
24
The VLSP has informed the Court that James E. Lyons and Kerry S. Kumabe of
25
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, located at 525 University Avenue, Suite 1100, Palo
26
Alto, CA 94301, have agreed to serve as appointed pro bono counsel for Plaintiff. Thus, James
27
E. Lyons and Kerry S. Kumabe are hereby APPOINTED as counsel for plaintiff pursuant to 28
28
Order Appointing Pro Bono Counsel
G:\PRO-SE\SJ.LHK\CR.11\Parrish438appt-counsel.wpd
1
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) and the Court’s Federal Pro Bono Project guidelines. The scope of this
2
referral shall be for all purposes for the duration of the case.
3
4
5
6
7
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.
3/11/13
DATED: _________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge
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.11\Parrish438appt-counsel.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?