(PC) Driver v. ADA 1824 Panels

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaFebruary 24, 20201:19-cv-01718California784 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 BILLY DRIVER, JR., Case No. 1:19-cv-01718-DAD-SAB (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO SET SETTLEMENT TELECONFERENCE

v. AND FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL ADA 1824 PANELS, et al., (ECF No. 21) Defendants. 16 Plaintiff Billy Driver, Jr. is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion requesting that the Court set this case for a settlement teleconference and appoint counsel to represent him at the settlement teleconference. (ECF No. 21.) However, first, Plaintiff’s request to set this matter for a settlement teleconference is premature. On December 16, 2019, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations recommending that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and that Plaintiff be ordered to pay the $400.00 filing fee in full in order to…

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.