Quinones v. Garza et al, No. 2:2019cv00190 - Document 14 (S.D. Tex. 2019)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL denying 9 Motion to Appoint.(Signed by Magistrate Judge B Janice Ellington) Parties notified.(mserpa, 2)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Quinones v. Garza et al Doc. 14 United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED 200UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION MANUEL QUINONES JR, Plaintiff, VS. JOE FRANK GARZA, et al, Defendants. § § § § § § § § September 03, 2019 David J. Bradley, Clerk CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-CV-190 OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL Plaintiff Manuel Quinones, Jr., proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (D.E. 9). In a separate order, the undersigned granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. (D.E. 12). That order also provided that “[n]o motions for appointment of counsel shall be filed until the Court has completed its screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which may include a hearing under Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985).” (D.E. 12, ¶ 9). This Court has yet to complete the § 1915A screening process in this case. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (D.E. 9) is DENIED without prejudice to renew after the screening process has been completed. ORDERED this 3rd day of September, 2019. ___________________________________ B. JANICE ELLINGTON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1/1 Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
