Barnes v. Crumb et al

Filing 26

ORDER In accordance with Part III.C. of the U.S. District Courts Pilot Program to Implement A Civil Pro Bono Panel, the Court hereby determines that Plaintiff Edwin Barnes merits appointment of counsel drawn from the Civil Pro Bono Panel, by Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 3/24/2014. (evana, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya Civil Action No. 13–cv–02614–WJM–KMT EDWIN BARNES, Plaintiff, v. DOCTOR CRUMB, individual and official capacities, DOCTOR STOB, individual and official capacities, and HEAD NURSE RODGERS, individual and official capacities, Defendants. APPOINTMENT ORDER In accordance with Part III.C. of the U.S. District Court’s Pilot Program to Implement A Civil Pro Bono Panel, the Court hereby determines that Plaintiff Edwin Barnes merits appointment of counsel 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. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Clerk shall select, notify, and appoint counsel to represent the pro se litigant in this civil matter. Plaintiff is advised that there is no guarantee that Panel members will undertake representation in every case selected as part of the Pilot Program. Plaintiff is further cautioned that, until appointed counsel enters an appearance, he is responsible for all scheduled matters, including hearings, depositions, motions, and trial. Dated this 24th day March, 2014. 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?