Frank v. Madison County Sherriffs Department et al

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. Petitioner's renewed request for the appointment of counsel (Filing No. 15 ) is denied without prejudice to reassertion for the reasons prov ided in the court's order dated December 30, 2014. (See Filing No. 11 .) The court will reconsider the question of whether counsel should be appointed upon review of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Ordered by Senior Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(TCL)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
JESSE ALAN FRANK,
Plaintiff,
v.
MADISON COUNTY SHERIFFS
DEPARTMENT, TERRY KOTROUS,
BILL KUCERA, JOHN DOES 1-20, and
JANE DOES 1-20.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4:14CV3184

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

Plaintiff, a non-prisoner, filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. (Filing
No. 18.) Upon review of Plaintiff’s Motion, the court finds that Plaintiff is financially eligible
to proceed in forma pauperis.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.

Leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

2.
Petitioner’s renewed request for the appointment of counsel (Filing No. 15) is
denied without prejudice to reassertion for the reasons provided in the court’s order dated
December 30, 2014. (See Filing No. 11.) The court will reconsider the question of whether
counsel should be appointed upon review of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint.
DATED this 2nd day of March, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
Senior United States District Judge
*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska
does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their Web sites.
Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the
availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does
not affect the opinion of the court.