Abdulgader

(PC) Wolinski v. Abdulgader

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaApril 24, 20242:21-cv-02078California854 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KRZYSZTOF F. WOLINSKI, No. 2:21-cv-02078-DJC-CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 ABDULBASET ABDULGADER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The parties have filed various motions which the court 19 will address in turn. 20 The first motion pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for a 60 day stay of 21 proceedings, or, in the alternative, the appointment of co-counsel during the dispositive motion 22 phase of the case. ECF No. 55. The court first notes that the requested time period has already 23 passed since this motion was docketed on December 27, 2023. Moreover, plaintiff does not seek 24 an extension of any specific deadline in this case. For these reasons, the court denies the motion 25 for a 60 day stay of proceedings. 26 The same motion also requests the appointment of counsel. District courts lack authority…

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.