Brant Q. Daniel v. Jeffrey Lynch, et al.

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaNovember 4, 20252:23-cv-00384California2,458 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRANT Q. DANIEL, No. 2:23-cv-0384 AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

14 JEFFREY LYNCH, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 18 without an attorney. Pending before the court are plaintiff’s motions for pretrial transfer and for 19 appointment of counsel. ECF No. 28, 33. For the reasons discussed below, the undersigned 20 denies the motion for appointment of counsel and recommends that the motion for transfer be 21 denied. 22 I. Motion for Pretrial Transfer (ECF No. 28) 23 A. The Motion 24 Plaintiff seeks an order from the court transferring him “to a more suitable hold facility so 25 that he can ‘prepare for a jury trial’ in this matter.” Id. at 1. Plaintiff complains that since his 26 transfer to the United States Penitentiary Victorville (“Victorville”), he has no access to the law 27 library, no ability to prepare his case, and…

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.