From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bistrika v. Hunter

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
May 31, 2016
6:10-cv-1545-JR (D. Or. May. 31, 2016)

Opinion

6:10-cv-1545-JR

05-31-2016

ALEXANDER BISTRIKA, Jr., et al. Plaintiffs, v. DEPUTY NICHOLAS HUNTER, et al., Defendants.


ORDER :

As noted in the court's order of May 18, 2016 (#195), a court request for appointment of pro bono counsel on behalf of the remaining non-indigent plaintiffs is not appropriate. On that same date, the court set a conference for June 8, 2016, to prepare a schedule for the filing of trial documents and to set a date for trial. However, in response, the remaining plaintiffs filed a motion seeking dismissal, stating:

Proceeding without counsel is perceived to be futile, and the Plaintiffs respectfully refuse to continue to do so. If the Court feels it is reasonable to deny counsel under the given circumstances, then the Plaintiffs ask for a dismissal of all remaining claims in this action....
Plaintiffs' Pro Se Motion (#197) at p. 2. The motion is granted and the scheduling conference set for June 8, 2016, is vacated.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs' motion for dismissal (#197) is granted. This action is dismissed and the clerk is directed to enter a judgment.

DATED this 31st day of May 2016.

/s/_________

JOLIE A. RUSSO

United States Magistrate Judge


Summaries of

Bistrika v. Hunter

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
May 31, 2016
6:10-cv-1545-JR (D. Or. May. 31, 2016)
Case details for

Bistrika v. Hunter

Case Details

Full title:ALEXANDER BISTRIKA, Jr., et al. Plaintiffs, v. DEPUTY NICHOLAS HUNTER, et…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

Date published: May 31, 2016

Citations

6:10-cv-1545-JR (D. Or. May. 31, 2016)