White v. Stroud et al

Filing 40

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 36 Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is referred to the Pro Bono Program for appointment of counsel for the purposes identified herein. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 6/6/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - cc: Pro Bono Liaison - ADR)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 *** 4 5 LEE A. WHITE, 6 Plaintiff, 7 8 vs. BRUCE STROUD, et al., 9 2:16-cv-01789-GMN-VCF ORDER Defendant. 10 11 12 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF NO. 36). 13 Plaintiff is seeking for appointment of counsel because he is unable to afford counsel. Proceeding 14 in forma pauperis in this case does not grant Plaintiff the right for appointment of counsel. Plaintiff’s 15 motion is DENIED. However, given that Plaintiff has stated a potential medical need, the court is referring 16 this case to the Pro Bono Program ("Program") adopted in General Order 2017-07 for the purpose of 17 screening for financial eligibility (if necessary) and identifying counsel willing to be appointed as pro 18 bono counsel for Plaintiff Lee A. White. The scope of appointment will be for all purposes through the 19 conclusion of trial. By referring this case to the Program, the Court is not expressing an opinion as to the 20 merits of the case. 21 Accordingly, 22 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF NO. 36) is 23 24 25 DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is referred to the Pro Bono Program for appointment of counsel for the purposes identified herein. 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk forwards this order to the Pro Bono Liaison. 2 DATED this 5th day of June, 2018. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 _________________________ CAM FERENBACH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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?