UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 25, 2008
MICHAEL R. HOLTSINGER PLAINTIFF,
J.M. BRIDDLE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Craig M. Kellison United States Magistrate Judge
FINDINGS AND ORDER APPOINTING COUNSEL (28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); General Order 230)
Upon review of plaintiff's notice that counsel is willing to continue representing plaintiff and the documents on file, and good cause appearing therefor, the court finds as follows:
1. Plaintiff has made substantial efforts to obtain legal representation and has been unable to do so. Further efforts to obtain the services of counsel without order of this court would be futile;
2. Plaintiff's income is 125 percent or less of the current poverty threshold established by the Office of Management and Budget of the United States and is otherwise without resources to obtain counsel;
3. This case is of a type that attorneys in this district ordinarily do not accept without prepayment of a fee;
4. This case is not a fee generating case within the meaning of California Business and Professional Code § 8030.4(g);
5. This case has sufficient merit to warrant appointment pursuant to General Order No. 230;
Therefore this court orders as follows:
1. The King Hall Civil Rights Clinic is appointed as attorney for plaintiff pursuant to General Order No. 230;
2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send counsel a copy of the file in this matter; and
3. Counsel shall submit all deposition transcript costs for payment pursuant to section 8030.6 of the California Business and Professions Code. All other contemplated costs shall be handled as described in General Order 230.
4. This case will be set for a status conference by separate order.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.