Hicks v. Baker et al

Filing 53

ORDER denying ECF Nos. 39 Motion for Reconsideration and 41 Motion to Amend motion to Reconsider; denying as moot ECF No. 40 Motion/Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 9/21/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

BRANDON M. HICKS,

Case No. 3:15-cv-00215-MMD-WGC
Petitioner,

8

ORDER

v.
9
RENEE BAKER, et al.,
10
Respondents.
11
12

Petitioner has filed a motion to reconsider a motion for appointment of counsel

13

(second request) (ECF No. 39) and a motion to amend motion to reconsider motion for

14

appointment of counsel (ECF No. 41). Nothing in these motions cause the Court to depart

15

from its earlier denial ruling.

16

Petitioner also has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 40).

17

The application is moot because Petitioner paid the filing fee when he commenced this

18

action.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

It is therefore ordered that Petitioner’s motion to reconsider a motion for
appointment of counsel (second request) (ECF No. 39) is denied.
It is further ordered that Petitioner’s motion to amend motion to reconsider motion
for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 41) is denied.
It is further ordered that Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF
No. 40) is denied as moot.
DATED THIS 21st day of September 2018.

26
27
28

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE