Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01098/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01098-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

ORDER - 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRESNO DIVISION

ALFRED R. KIDD, )

)

Plaintiff, ) Case No. CV 01:06-1098 BLW MHW 

)

v. ) ORDER

)

V. BIGGS, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

___________________________ )

This case has been referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for

all pretrial matters. (Docket No. 23.) Before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion for

Appointment of Counsel and Defendants’ Request to Take Plaintiff’s Deposition Via

Videoconference. 

The Court having been fully advised in these matters, NOW THEREFORE IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Docket No. 42) is DENIED

without prejudice. Plaintiff continues to be able to access the Court and to

articulate his claims sufficiently, perhaps with the assistance of other

inmates, and it remains unclear whether any claims are potentially

meritorious. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991)

(holding that counsel should be appointed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 only in

Case 1:06-cv-01098-BLW -MHW Document 46 Filed 02/19/10 Page 1 of 2
ORDER - 2

“exceptional circumstances”). 

2. Defendants’ Request to Take Plaintiff’s Deposition Via Videoconference

(Docket No. 45) is GRANTED. Defendants’ counsel shall be given leave

to conduct Plaintiff’s deposition via videoconference, in accordance with

Rule 30(b)(2)(B) and (b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, after

providing reasonable notice to Plaintiff.

DATED: February 19, 2010

 

Honorable Mikel H. Williams

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:06-cv-01098-BLW -MHW Document 46 Filed 02/19/10 Page 2 of 2