Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Golden v. County of Tulare

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


July 9, 2010

MICHAEL GOLDEN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
COUNTY OF TULARE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Oliver W. Wanger United States District Judge.

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR AUTHORITY TO INCUR COSTS AS "APPOINTED COUNSEL" AND REQUEST FOR PAYMENT (DOCS. 26 & 27)

On July 7, 2010, Counsel for Plaintiff, Michael Golden, filed two, duplicative, "request[s] for authority to incur costs (appointed counsel) and request for payment." Docs. 26 and 27. Counsel apparently believes that he has been appointed by the Court to represent plaintiff at the public's expense. Counsel is incorrect.

On August 13, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion with the self-titled docket entry: "Motion to Appoint Counsel." Doc. 7. However, the motion docketed was actually a "motion for order approving substitution of attorney for plaintiff." Id. It was the motions paper (not the docket entry) that was reviewed and granted by Magistrate Judge Beck. Doc. 9, filed September 4, 2009. The September 4, 2009 order simply authorized the substitution of counsel for Plaintiff, who until then was representing himself. The Court has not reviewed nor granted any application to appoint counsel for Mr. Golden. Accordingly, Counsel's request to incur costs as "appointed counsel" is DENIED. Counsel is not appointed counsel.

SO ORDERED.

20100709

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.