(PC) Flores v. Johnson

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaSeptember 26, 20192:19-cv-00314California611 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 NICHOLAUS D. FLORES, No. 2:19-CV-0314-JAM-DMC-P Plaintiff, v. ORDER J. JOHNSON, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court are: (1) plaintiff’s motion for modification of the August 2, 2019, scheduling order (ECF No. 23); and (2) plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 22). On August 2, 2019, the court issued a scheduling order permitting the parties to conduct discovery through December 9, 2019. See ECF No. 20. In his motion for modification of the scheduling order, plaintiff seeks an extension of time to conduct discovery to December 9, 2019. Because discovery has been permitted through this date, plaintiff’s motion will be denied as unnecessary. / / / / / / / / / Turning to plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel, the United States Supreme…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.