Walker v. Koehn

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA te OK OK ‘ James Ray Walker, Case No. 2:22-cv-02054-RFB-DJA Plaintiff, 7 Order v. Koehn, et al., Defendants.

11 Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff James Ray Walker’s “declaration regarding 12 appointment of counsel.” (ECF No. 80). In his declaration, Plaintiff explains that, after the Court 13 granted the Federal Public Defender’s motion to withdraw as his counsel, Plaintiff “is unaware of || who or what firm was designated to replace FPD.” The Court liberally construes Plaintiff's || declaration as a motion for clarification. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) || (explaining that a “document filed pro se is to be liberally construed”) (internal citations and || quotations omitted). It grants Plaintiff's request for clarification and explains that, after the Court || granted the Federal Public Defender’s motion to withdraw, the Court did not appoint replacement || counsel. (ECF No. 75). So, if Plaintiff requests appointment of counsel, Plaintiff must file a || motion for appointment of counsel.

21 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Court liberally construes Plaintiff's || declaration (ECF No. 80) as one for clarification and grants it. Plaintiff must file a motion for || appointment of counsel if he requests that the Court appoint him new counsel.

25 DATED: August 1, 2025, Q) o> □ 7 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE