Diaz

(PC) Moore v. Diaz

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaOctober 29, 20201:20-cv-00865California479 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1

2

3

4

5 6 7 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 11 TERRENCE JESSE MOORE, Case No. 1:20-cv-00865-AWI-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 13 FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO v. COUNSEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 HEATHER DIAZ, (ECF No. 24)

15

Defendant.

16

17 18 Terrence Jesse Moore (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 On October 26, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of pro bono counsel. (ECF 21 No. 24). Plaintiff asks for appointment of counsel because his case was “accepted” and 22 Defendant was served; because he has made numerous attempts to obtain an attorney; and 23 because, due to COVID-19, he has been placed in special housing and is not allowed to leave his 24 cell, so he has no access to the law library. 25 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 26 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154…

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.