Holmes v. Estock et al

Filing 169

ORDER Appointing Pro Bono Counsel Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) and S.D. Cal. Gen. Order 596. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 6/3/2022. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service and Mr. Huggins, Ms. Jackson, and Mr. Ryan served at address listed.) (tcf)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

CHARLES HOLMES,
Plaintiff,

11

14

ORDER APPOINTING PRO BONO
COUNSEL PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(1) AND S.D. Cal. Gen. Order
596

vs.

12
13

Case No.: 16-cv-2458-MMA (BLM)

ESTOCK, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16

Plaintiff Charles Holmes, a prisoner currently incarcerated at Kern Valley State

17

Prison (“KVSP”) in Delano, California, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

18

civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

19

Plaintiff suffers from a congenital kidney defect and his Eighth Amendment

20

inadequate medical care claims against Defendants Estock, Currier, Diaz, Montgomery,

21

and Nasir have survived summary judgment. See Doc. No. 145. Plaintiff was previously

22

represented by retained counsel, but his attorney has since been granted leave to

23

withdraw. See Doc. No. 166. Because the case must proceed to trial on the merits, on

24

May 20, 2022, the Court sua sponte reconsidered Plaintiff’s original motion to appoint

25

counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) and referred his case to its Pro Bono Panel for

26

potential representation pursuant to S.D. Cal. General Order 596. See Doc. No. 168. The

27

Court’s “Plan for the Representation of Pro se Litigants in Civil Cases” as adopted by

28

G.O. 596 provides that “the Court may appoint counsel for purposes of trial as a matter of
-1-

16-cv-2458-MMA (BLM)

1

course in each prisoner civil rights case where summary judgment has been denied.”

2

S.D. Cal. Gen. Order 596.

3

Accordingly, the Court hereby APPOINTS Michael Huggins, Esq., SBN 305562,

4

Kirsten Jackson, SBN 265952, and Jake Ryan, SBN 211899, all of Latham & Watkins

5

LLP, 12670 High Bluff Drive, San Diego, California, 92130, all of whom have

6

graciously accepted the Court’s request, as Pro Bono Counsel for Plaintiff.

7

Pursuant to S.D. Cal. CivLR 83.3.f.2, Pro Bono Counsel is directed to file, within

8

fourteen (14) days of this Order if possible in light of the constraints inherent in

9

Plaintiff’s incarceration at KVSP, a formal written Notice of Substitution of Attorney

10

signed by both Plaintiff and his newly appointed counsel.1 This substitution will be

11

approved by the Court upon submission, and Pro Bono Counsel will thereafter be

12

considered attorney of record for Plaintiff for all purposes during further proceedings

13

before this Court, in this matter only, and at the Court’s specific request. See S.D. Cal.

14

CivLR 83.3.f.1, 2. The Court further DIRECTS the parties to jointly contact the

15

assigned Magistrate Judge within twenty-one (21) days of the Notice of Substitution for

16

the purpose of scheduling a settlement conference at Judge Major’s convenience.

17

The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to serve Mr. Huggins, Ms. Jackson,

18

and Mr. Ryan with a copy of this Order via U.S. Mail at the address listed above and by

19

email at [e-mail], [e-mail], and [e-mail]

20

upon filing. See S.D. Cal. CivLR 83.3.f.2.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 3, 2022

23

_____________________________

24

HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28

1

Should any other attorneys affiliated with Latham & Watkins, LLP wish to enter an appearance on
Plaintiff’s behalf, they need only be admitted to practice in the Southern District of California, and
identified in the Notice of Substitution filed by Mr. Huggins.
-2-

16-cv-2458-MMA (BLM)