BRANDT v. CIRILLO et al
| JOHN BRANDT |
| GUY CIRILLO, TONY BROWN, ANTONIO PIRES, ALFARO ORTIZ, JR., LIONEL ANICETTE, JOHN AND JANE DOE 1-19, OFFICER BIVONA and LT. CRAWFORD |
| 2:2022cv03752 |
| June 13, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of New Jersey |
| Jose R Almonte |
| Kevin McNulty |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 10, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 3
ORDER administratively terminating without prejudice Motion to Appoint Pro Bono. Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of pro bono counsel (ECF No. 2) is administratively terminated without prejudice because only parties who have been granted in forma pauperis relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915 may seek the appointment of pro bono counsel. See Fulton v. United States, 198 F. App'x 210, 214 (3d Cir. 2006) (finding no error in denying request for appointment of counsel where plaintiff "had not received [in forma pauperis] status"). Plaintiff shall have leave to refile his motion for the appointment of pro bono counsel if he is granted in forma pauperis relief. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jose R. Almonte on 6/15/2022. (smf)
|
|
Filing 2
MOTION to Appoint Pro Bono by JOHN BRANDT. (pnm)
|
|
Filing 1
Complaint Received. (Attachments: #1 Application IFP, #2 Envelope)(pnm)
|
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New Jersey District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
