From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Reed v. Haferkamp

United States District Court, E.D. California
Aug 8, 2006
No. CIV S-04-0936 LKK GGH P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2006)

Opinion

No. CIV S-04-0936 LKK GGH P.

August 8, 2006


ORDER


Plaintiff is a prison inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action. On June 29, 2006, plaintiff filed his third request for the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff's previous requests were filed on May 15, 2006, and June 7, 2006. All requests were denied. In light of those orders, plaintiff's June 29, 2006, request is denied.

On June 29, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion to compel. Pursuant to the January 20, 2006, scheduling order, discovery closed on May 5, 2006. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to compel is denied as untimely.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's June 29, 2006, motion for appointment of counsel is denied;

2. Plaintiff's June 29, 2006, motion to compel is denied.


Summaries of

Reed v. Haferkamp

United States District Court, E.D. California
Aug 8, 2006
No. CIV S-04-0936 LKK GGH P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2006)
Case details for

Reed v. Haferkamp

Case Details

Full title:LEE ANDREW REED, Plaintiff, v. S. HAFERKAMP, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Aug 8, 2006

Citations

No. CIV S-04-0936 LKK GGH P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2006)