Case Information
*1 Case 1:07-cv-01577-GMS Document 52 Filed 08/31/10 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Leon H. Pogue, )
) No. 1:07cv-01577-GMS Plaintiff, )
) )
vs.
) ) ORDER
Dr. Igbanosa, et al.,
) )
Defendants.
) )
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion/Request to Have Defendants Dr.
Howard Ehrman, Dr. Bryan Hui-Phi and Howard Hicenbothom (SIC) Served in this Matter by the U.S. Marshal’s Office and Request for Appointment of Counsel Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A (Doc. 44). Both motions will be denied for the following reasons.
Plaintiff became aware no later than September 2009 that Defendants Ehrman, Hui- Phi nor Hickenbothom were not served. Plaintiff did not raise the failure of service with this Court at anytime. The following month, on October 5, 2009, the Court set the Scheduling Order in this matter. It required that discovery requests be submitted by January 4, 2010, but that Plaintiff’s deposition be taken by February 2, 2010, and that dispositive motions be filed by March 4, 2010, which the Court subsequently extended until June 11, 2010. During none of this time did Plaintiff seek to conduct any discovery or did he seek to obtain service, or invoke the Court’s aid in obtaining service on the three Defendants on whom service had not been obtained. It was not until two months after the dispositive *2 Case 1:07-cv-01577-GMS Document 52 Filed 08/31/10 Page 2 of 2 motion deadline and after a pretrial conference has been held that Plaintiff now at this late date seeks to have service on the three unserved Defendants. The Complaint was long ago abated as to the three unserved Defendants. See e.g. , Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(m). Further, Plaintiff’s case does not present unusual circumstances that would justify appointment of counsel pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3006(a). Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 44) is denied. DATED this 30th day of August, 2010.
- 2 -