Santiesteban

(PC) Valenzuela v. Santiesteban

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaAugust 25, 20201:20-cv-01093California552 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MARIO A. VALENZUELA, Case No. 1:20-cv-01093-BAM (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT

COUNSEL

v. (ECF No. 7) SANTIESTEBAN, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff Mario A. Valenzuela (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel, filed August 24, 2020. (ECF No. 7.) In his motion, Plaintiff states that he is requesting appointment of counsel because he has a mental illness and is currently at the EOP mental level of care. Plaintiff also received special education in high school, and it is difficult for him to acquire and read legal documentation. Plaintiff attaches an exhibit showing his history of mental illness in support of his request. (Id.) Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir.…

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.