Free Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:01-cv-02374-CFD

Document 66

Filed 08/17/2004

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT EDWARD BROWN, AND JEFFREY MENARD Plaintiffs, v. TOWN OF STONINGTON, ET AL., Defendants. : : : : : : : : :

Civ. Action No. 3:01 CV 2374(CFD)

RULING ON PENDING MOTIONS Pending are Attorney R. Edward Phillips's Motion to Withdraw as Attorney [Doc. #65], Edward Brown's Motion for Appointment of Counsel [Doc. #46], Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment Directed to Jeffrey Menard [Doc. #48], Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment Directed to Edward Brown [Doc. #51], and Plaintiffs' Motion to Quash the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the alternative, for an Enlargement of Time Within the Court's Scheduling Order [Doc. #55]. The Motion to Withdraw as Attorney [Doc. #65] is GRANTED. The Court finds that good cause exists to permit Attorney Phillips to withdraw his appearance for the plaintiff, Edward Brown. Edward Brown is directed to engage other counsel or file a pro se appearance within the next 30 days. Failure to engage other counsel or file a pro se appearance may result in a dismissal of his action. See Rule 7(e) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for the District of Connecticut. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this order to Edward Brown at the following address: 4 Marlene Drive, Ledyard, CT 06339. Plaintiff Edward Brown's Motion for Appointment of Counsel [Doc. #46] is DENIED.

1

Case 3:01-cv-02374-CFD

Document 66

Filed 08/17/2004

Page 2 of 2

Having reviewed the plaintiff's motion, complaint, and record as a whole, the Court finds that the plaintiff has failed to establish that his claim is likely to be of substance. See Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 61 (2d Cir. 1986). Accordingly, the Court concludes that the appointment of counsel is not warranted. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment Directed to Jeffrey Menard [Doc. #48] and Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment Directed to Edward Brown [Doc. #51] are DENIED, without prejudice to renewal after discovery has been completed. Plaintiffs' Motion to Quash the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the alternative, for an Enlargement of Time Within the Court's Scheduling Order [Doc. #55] is GRANTED. The parties are ordered to file a joint proposed amended scheduling order within 45 days of the date of this ruling. SO ORDERED this 17th day of August 2004, at Hartford, Connecticut.

/s/ CFD CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2