SPRINGFIELD v. SINGH, 2:12-cv-2552 KJM AC P. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20151026621
Visitors: 8
Filed: Oct. 22, 2015
Latest Update: Oct. 22, 2015
Summary: ORDER ALLISON CLAIRE , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff's current request for appointment of counsel, ECF No. 89, is unnecessary because the court granted such request, for limited purposes, by order filed October 7, 2015. Plaintiff's additional reasons for requesting appointment of counsel will later be considered when assessing whether such appointment should extend beyond the currently identified limited purposes. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's request for appointme
Summary: ORDER ALLISON CLAIRE , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff's current request for appointment of counsel, ECF No. 89, is unnecessary because the court granted such request, for limited purposes, by order filed October 7, 2015. Plaintiff's additional reasons for requesting appointment of counsel will later be considered when assessing whether such appointment should extend beyond the currently identified limited purposes. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's request for appointmen..
More
ORDER
ALLISON CLAIRE, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff's current request for appointment of counsel, ECF No. 89, is unnecessary because the court granted such request, for limited purposes, by order filed October 7, 2015. Plaintiff's additional reasons for requesting appointment of counsel will later be considered when assessing whether such appointment should extend beyond the currently identified limited purposes.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel, ECF No. 89, is denied as unnecessary; and
2. The Clerk of Court is directed to send plaintiff, together with a copy of this order, a copy of the court's order filed October 7, 2015 (ECF No. 88).
Source: Leagle
