Ciolli

(PC) Luedtke v. Ciolli

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMarch 19, 20201:20-cv-00406California591 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JAMES LUEDTKE, Case No. 1:20-cv-00406-BAM (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT

COUNSEL

v. (ECF No. 3) CIOLLI, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff James Luedtke (“Plaintiff”) is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel, filed March 19, 2020. (ECF No. 3.) In his motion, Plaintiff states that he has only a 10th grade education and no formal legal training, and due to a lack of lawyer contact information at the institution where he is currently housed, he was not able to contact any lawyers in the private market. Plaintiff further argues that due to the complexity of this case, including the discovery that must be conducted, the fact that he has requested a jury trial, and because one of the asserted claims is a medical claim, appointment of counsel is warranted. …

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.