Nelson v. Rosenboom et al

Filing 98

ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motions for appointment of counsel are GRANTED insofar as counsel will be appointed to represent all Plaintiffs in responding to the two motions for summary judgment and are DENIED in all other respe cts. [Docs. 61, 62, 63, 67, 76, 80, 84]IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to compel is DENIED without prejudice. [Doc. 60] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the pro se motion requesting that two Plaintiffs' transfer to another facility to enjoined, the motion to stay plaintiff Tim Sumpter's sexually violent predator trial, the motion by plaintiff Michael Goddard for copies of court documents, the motion to proceed to trial, and the motion for injunctive relief to place plaintiff Timothy Ne lson in a Department of Mental Health facility are each DENIED. [Docs. 74, 77, 86, 92, 93] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Daniel C. Nelson, Armstrong Teasdale, LLP, One Metropolitan Square, Suite 2600, St. Louis, MO, 63102, is appointed to represent Plai ntiffs for the limited purpose set forth above. Mr. Nelson is GRANTED an extension of sixty (60) days in which to respond to the two pending motions for summary judgment. The Clerk of Court shall provide Plaintiffs' newly-appointed counsel with a complete copy of the complaint, amended complaint, and motions for summary judgment at no cost. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that, until such time as the pending motions for summary judgment have been ruled, any further filings on behalf of Plaintiffs shall be made only by their attorney. Signed by Mag Judge Thomas C. Mummert, III on 9/24/08. (BAK)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION TIMOTHY NELSON, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. JONATHON ROSENBOOM, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case number 4:07cv1158 TCM ORDER This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action is again before the Court on various opposed motions by Plaintiffs for appointment of counsel. [Docs. 61, 62, 63, 67, 76, 80, 84] The Court has reviewed these motions, other pending motions, and the underlying allegations. Upon consideration thereof, the Court finds that the appointment of counsel will assist Plaintiffs and the Court. See Plummer v. Grimes, 87 F.3d 1032, 1033 (8th Cir. 1996). Counsel will be appointed for the limited purpose of responding to the two pending motions for summary judgment. [Docs. 72, 89] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motions for appointment of counsel are GRANTED insofar as counsel will be appointed to represent all Plaintiffs in responding to the two motions for summary judgment and are DENIED in all other respects. [Docs. 61, 62, 63, 67, 76, 80, 84] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to compel is DENIED without prejudice. [Doc. 60] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the pro se motion requesting that two Plaintiffs' transfer to another facility to enjoined, the motion to stay plaintiff Tim Sumpter's sexually violent predator trial, the motion by plaintiff Michael Goddard for copies of court documents, the motion to proceed to trial, and the motion for injunctive relief to place plaintiff Timothy Nelson in a Department of Mental Health facility are each DENIED. [Docs. 74, 77, 86, 92, 93] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Daniel C. Nelson, Armstrong Teasdale, LLP, One Metropolitan Square, Suite 2600, St. Louis, MO, 63102, is appointed to represent Plaintiffs for the limited purpose set forth above. Mr. Nelson is GRANTED an extension of sixty (60) days in which to respond to the two pending motions for summary judgment. The Clerk of Court shall provide Plaintiffs' newly-appointed counsel with a complete copy of the complaint, amended complaint, and motions for summary judgment at no cost. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that, until such time as the pending motions for summary judgment have been ruled, any further filings on behalf of Plaintiffs shall be made only by their attorney. /s/ Thomas C. Mummert, III THOMAS C. MUMMERT, III UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Dated this 24th day of September, 2008. -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?