Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilcd;;3:17-cv-03212_de63> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 5 of
5
with 100 items per page.
- ilcd;;3:17-cv-03212_de63 RegisterActionDate "2019-01-09" @default.
- ilcd;;3:17-cv-03212_de63 RegisterActionDescriptionText "TEXT ORDER: Plaintiff has filed an interlocutory appeal regarding the Court's denial of Plaintiff's motions for the Court to search for pro bono counsel. An interlocutory appeal may be allowed by the Court of Appeals if this court finds that there is "a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal... may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation...." 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The court sees no debatable question of law, nor does the court see how an immediate appeal would materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. Additionally, decisions on whether to appoint pro bono counsel are generally not appropriate for interlocutory review. See Randle v. Victor Welding Supply Co., 664 F.2d 1064 (7th Cir. 1981)(district court's denial of motion to appoint counsel is reviewable on final judgment, not interlocutory appeal). The plaintiff may appeal all adverse orders, including the denial of counsel, once final judgment is entered for all the claims. Accordingly, the plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on his interlocutory appeal is denied. (d/e 55 .) Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 01/09/2019. (DM, ilcd) (Entered: 01/09/2019)" @default.
- ilcd;;3:17-cv-03212_de63 AdministrativeID "None" @default.
- ilcd;;3:17-cv-03212_de63 hasJudgeReference SJ001511 @default.
- ilcd;;3:17-cv-03212_de63 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;3:17-cv-03212_de61 @default.