Opinion
2:11-cv-01293-GMN-NJK
03-04-2013
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion Invoking Protection of Rights (#70) and Plaintiff's Second Motion for Appointment of Counsel (#71). The Court has considered the Plaintiff's Motions (#70) and (#71) and the Defendants' Response (#73).
DISCUSSION
On November 21, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Invoke Protection of Rights and for Appointment of Counsel (#60). The Court denied that Motion (#60) because the Plaintiff "failed to show any circumstances compelling the appointment of counsel." Order (#65). The present Motions (#70) and (#71) are virtually identical to Motion (#60). The Plaintiff has failed to show any circumstances compelling the appointment of counsel. ... ... ...
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, and good cause appearing therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Motion Invoking Protection of Rights (#70) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Second Motion for Appointment of Counsel (#71) is DENIED.
_______________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge