Albonico

(PC) Rodriguez v. Albonico

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaDecember 9, 20202:19-cv-01108California713 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DAVID ARNOLD RODRIGUEZ, No. 2:19-cv-1108 MCE AC P Plaintiff, v. ORDER N. ALBONICO, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, has filed motions in opposition to defendants’ request to opt out of the Post-Screening ADR Project (ECF No. 38), seeking appointment of counsel (ECF No. 41), and for leave to serve defense counsel (ECF No. 42). Plaintiff argues that defendants’ request to opt out of the Post-Screening ADR Project should be denied because he did not receive it until July 16, 2020, making it untimely. ECF No. 38 at 1-2. However, defendants’ motion was filed on July 9, 2020 (ECF No. 33), which was within the sixty-day deadline set by the court, making the motion timely. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion will be denied. With respect to plaintiff’s motion for counsel, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that district…

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.