IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 4, 2011
LEVON D. GRAHAM, PLAINTIFF,
RUNNELS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court has determined that appointment of counsel for plaintiff is warranted. James L. Day and Brian D. Berry from Latham & Watkins, LLP, have been selected from the Court's pro bono attorney panel to represent plaintiff and they have agreed to accept the appointment. In addition, in light of the appointment, the court will vacate the pending motion for summary judgment filed by defendants on March 3, 2011, without prejudice to the motion being re-noticed within ninety days from the date of this order.
The Court finds as follows:
Efforts to obtain legal representation without order of this court would be futile;
1. 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;
2. This case is of a type that attorneys in this district ordinarily do not accept without prepayment of a fee;
3. This case is not a fee generating case within the meaning of California Business and Professions Code § 8030.4(g); and
4. This case has sufficient merit to warrant appointment pursuant to General Order No. 230.
Therefore, this court orders as follows:
1. James L. Day and Brian D. Berry of Latham & Watkins, LLP, are appointed as counsel for plaintiff pursuant to General Order No. 230;
2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order upon James L. Day and Brian D. Berry, Latham & Watkins LLP, 505 Montgomery Street, San Francisco, CA 94111.
3. Counsel shall submit all deposition transcript costs for payment pursuant to § 8030.6 of the California Business and Professions Code. All other contemplated costs shall be handled as described in General Order No. 230; and
4. Defendants' pending motion for summary judgment, filed on March 3, 2011, is vacated without prejudice to being re-noticed no later than ninety days from the date of this order.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.