Sweeney

Sweeney v. Carringer

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMay 12, 20254:25-cv-03148California394 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 JOHN DONNELLY SWEENEY, et al., Case No. 25-cv-03148-JST

Plaintiffs,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

v. APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO

COUNSEL AND MOTION FOR STAY

CHRISTINE CARRINGER, et al., Re: ECF Nos. 5, 6 Defendants.

12 Before the Court are Plaintiffs John Donnelly Sweeney’s and Jennifer Frost’s motions for appointment of pro bono counsel, ECF No. 6, and motion for stay, ECF No. 5. The Court will deny both motions. I. Motion for Appointment of Pro Bono Counsel Plaintiffs move for appointment of pro bono counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), arguing “[a]ppointment of counsel is warranted due to Plaintiffs’ indigence, the complexity of this decade-long conspiracy involving multiple jurisdictions and constitutional violations, and exceptional circumstances, including repeated denials of legal representation by Defendant Judge Christine Carringer since August 2022.” ECF No. 6 at 2. “Generally, a person has no right to counsel in civil…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.