Filed: Jan. 10, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 10, 2018
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Following resolution of the motion for summary judgment, this action proceeds on plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims against defendants Fleming, Guerra and Wilson. On December 18, 2017, plaintiff filed a request for 60 day extension of time in which to file a pretrial statement, and filed a request for appointment of counsel, primarily to prepare plain
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Following resolution of the motion for summary judgment, this action proceeds on plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims against defendants Fleming, Guerra and Wilson. On December 18, 2017, plaintiff filed a request for 60 day extension of time in which to file a pretrial statement, and filed a request for appointment of counsel, primarily to prepare plaint..
More
ORDER
KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Following resolution of the motion for summary judgment, this action proceeds on plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims against defendants Fleming, Guerra and Wilson. On December 18, 2017, plaintiff filed a request for 60 day extension of time in which to file a pretrial statement, and filed a request for appointment of counsel, primarily to prepare plaintiff's pretrial statement, prepare the case for trial, including obtaining witnesses, and to try the case. However, this case is set for settlement conference on January 30, 2018. In light of that setting, the further scheduling order was vacated, and plaintiff was thus relieved of his obligation to file a pretrial statement at this time. Thus, plaintiff's request for an extension of time is denied as moot.
Similarly, if this action settled on January 30, 2018, appointment of counsel will not be necessary. Therefore, plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice to its renewal following the January 30 settlement conference. Plaintiff is not required to re-file the entire request, but may simply file a one page request to renew his prior motion for appointment counsel (ECF No. 93).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motions (ECF Nos. 93, 95) are denied without prejudice.
