Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/cod;;1:17-cv-01647_de92> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 8 of
8
with 100 items per page.
- cod;;1:17-cv-01647_de92 RegisterActionDate "2020-05-15" @default.
- cod;;1:17-cv-01647_de92 RegisterActionDescriptionText "ORDER. This matter is before the Court on three Motions filed by Claimant E289F6B: 88 Motion for Hearing/Conference; 89 Motion to Appoint Pro Bono Counsel ; and 90 Motion for Hearing/Conference (collectively "the Motions"), which have been referred to this Court 91 , 92 . For the following reasons, the Motions are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Cognizant of the difficulties at Mr. E289F6B or 4E41F17 facility due to COVID-19, the Motions are GRANTED to the extent Claimant seeks a 90-day continuance of the Stay in this matter. This matter shall remain STAYED until 8/18/2020. The Scheduling Conference set for 5/26/2020 11:00 AM is VACATED. A Status Conference is set for 8/18/2020 10:15 AM in Courtroom A 402 before Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak. Claimants may participate telephonically by calling the Court at 303.335.2365 at the scheduled date and time. The Motions are DENIED to the extent Claimant renews his request for the appointment of counsel. As the Court has previously explained, claimant is not guaranteed appointment of counsel in a civil case, and the determination of whether to appoint counsel in a civil case is left to the sound discretion of the district court. Rucks v. Boergermann, 57 F.3d 978, 979 (10th Cir. 1995). This Court previously denied Claimant's requests for counsel 82 , 86 , noting in part that the case remains at the earliest stages of the proceedings, and that if the case develops, and the merits became clearer, Claimant could renew his request for counsel. There have been no developments in the case since Claimant's previous two requests for counsel within the past month. Again, Mr. E289F6B or 4E41F17 may renew his request for counsel if the merits become clearer as the case develops, and after he has had an opportunity to again make contact with pro bono attorneys or legal clinics, once they have reopened. Finally, the Court notes that it is well-aware of the Haines rule, and because Claimant proceeds pro se, the Court construes his pleadings liberally, and holds them to "a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972)). The Court, however, cannot be a pro se litigant's advocate. See Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925, 927 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008). For the foregoing reasons, Claimant's Motions are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and this matter remains STAYED. The Clerk of Court is instructed to mail a copy of this Order to Claimants. SO ORDERED, by Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak on 5/15/2020. Text Only Entry(stvlc2, ) (Entered: 05/15/2020)" @default.
- cod;;1:17-cv-01647_de92 AdministrativeID "93" @default.
- cod;;1:17-cv-01647_de92 OntologyLabel order @default.
- cod;;1:17-cv-01647_de92 hasReferenceToOtherEntry cod;;1:17-cv-01647_de81 @default.
- cod;;1:17-cv-01647_de92 hasReferenceToOtherEntry cod;;1:17-cv-01647_de87 @default.
- cod;;1:17-cv-01647_de92 hasReferenceToOtherEntry cod;;1:17-cv-01647_de88 @default.
- cod;;1:17-cv-01647_de92 hasReferenceToOtherEntry cod;;1:17-cv-01647_de89 @default.