Chalepah v. Canon City & Royal Gorge Route

Filing 37

ORDER granting 36 Motion of Plaintiff's Request for Voluntary Attorney. By Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 12/20/2013.(klyon, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland Civil Action No. 13-cv-02166-BNB ALAN D. CHALEPAH, Plaintiff, v. CANON CITY & ROYAL GORGE ROUTE a/k/a Royal Gorge Route Railroad, Defendant. ______________________________________________________________________________ ORDER ______________________________________________________________________________ This matter arises on the Motion of Plaintiff’s Request for Voluntary Attorney [Doc. #36, filed 12/16/2013] (the “Motion”). The Motion is GRANTED. As permitted under Part III.C. of the U.S. District Court’s Pilot Program to Implement a Civil Pro Bono Panel, the court hereby finds that counsel should be drawn from the Civil Pro Bono Panel. The court is satisfied that the following factors and considerations have been met: (1) the nature and complexity of the action; (2) the potential merit of the pro se party’s claims; (3) the demonstrated inability of the pro se party to retain counsel by other means; and (4) the degree to which the interests of justice will be served by appointment of counsel, including the benefit the court may derive from the assistance of the appointed counsel. Although I grant the plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, I caution him that until counsel enters an appearance, he is personally responsible for complying with all court orders and time limitations established by any applicable rules. IT IS ORDERED that the Motion of Plaintiff’s Request for Voluntary Attorney [Doc. #36] is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court shall select, notify, and appoint counsel to represent the pro se litigant in this civil matter. Dated December 20, 2013. BY THE COURT: s/ Boyd N. Boland United States Magistrate Judge 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?