(PC) Hampton v. Austin

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaFebruary 27, 20232:20-cv-01001California1,041 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 GARY G. HAMPTON, JR., No. 2:20-CV-1001-KJM-DMC-P Plaintiff, v. ORDER E. WELSCH, Defendant. 16 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 17, 2022, the Court issued findings and recommendations addressing Defendant’s unopposed motion to dismiss and recommended the motion be granted. See ECF No. 32. On August 29, 2022, Plaintiff filed objections. See ECF No. 33. On February 21, 2023, the District Judge issued an order declining to adopt the August 17, 2022, findings and recommendations and referring the matter back to the undersigned for consideration of whether appointment of counsel is warranted in this case. See ECF No. 35. Consistent with the District Judge’s order, the Court construes Plaintiff’s August 29, 2022, objections as a motion for the appointment of counsel. / / / / / / The United States Supreme Court has…

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.