From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Guzman v. Dorsey

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Jan 11, 2023
19-cv-03757-HSG (N.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2023)

Opinion

19-cv-03757-HSG

01-11-2023

MAYITO GUZMAN, Plaintiff, v. D. DORSEY, et al., Defendants.


ORDER APPOINTING COUNSEL; REOPENING CASE; STAYING PROCEEDINGS

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge

Plaintiff has filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dkt. Nos. 21, 24. On June 22, 2022, the Court denied in part and granted in part Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 38. The Court dismissed Plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief but denied the remainder of the summary judgment motion. Dkt. No. 38. The Court referred this action to Magistrate Judge Robert Illman for settlement proceedings pursuant to the Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program. Dkt. No. 38. On October 20, 2022, Judge Illman reported that the parties were unable to reach an agreement at that time. Dkt. No. 45. On October 26, 2022, the Court referred this case to the Federal Pro Bono Project to locate counsel for purposes of appointment. Dkt. No. 46.

The Federal Pro Bono Project has informed the Court that Daniel Bitton (California SBN 320296), Jason Murata (California SBN 319287), Neelesh Moorthy (California SBN 341155), Isabella Solorzano (California SBN 345703), and Patrick Doyle (California SBN 329810) of Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP, 55 Second Street, Suite 2000, San Francisco, CA 94105, have agreed to serve as appointed pro bono counsel for Plaintiff in this action. The Court is grateful for the firm's interest and commitment and, good cause shown, APPOINTS Daniel Bitton, Jason Murata, Neelesh Moorthy, Isabella Solorzano, and Patrick Doyle as counsel for Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) and the Court's Federal Pro Bono Project guidelines. The scope of this referral shall be for all purposes for the duration of the case through entry of a final judgment in District Court.

The Clerk is directed to REOPEN this case. However, all proceedings in this action are hereby stayed until eight weeks from the date of this ORDER, at which point the Court will schedule a case management conference. The purpose of the stay is to permit volunteer counsel sufficient time to meet and interview Plaintiff and review the case file. The parties shall file a joint case management statement no later than seven calendar days before the case management conference.

The Clerk shall add Plaintiff's appointed counsel to the docket. Counsel shall be familiar with General Order No. 25 posted on the Court's website. Counsel should update their address in the Court's electronic filing system to reflect their current address.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Guzman v. Dorsey

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Jan 11, 2023
19-cv-03757-HSG (N.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2023)
Case details for

Guzman v. Dorsey

Case Details

Full title:MAYITO GUZMAN, Plaintiff, v. D. DORSEY, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Northern District of California

Date published: Jan 11, 2023

Citations

19-cv-03757-HSG (N.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2023)