(PC) Acosta v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10 11 LOUIS ACOSTA, Case No. 1:20-cv-01209-DAD-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO v. COUNSEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF (ECF No. 43)
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION, et al.,
16 Defendants.
18 Louis Acosta (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action. On October 25, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of pro bono counsel. (ECF No. 43). Plaintiff asks for appointment of counsel because he has no money; because the issues involved in this case are complex; because he has no legal training; and because he is having extreme trouble comprehending legal wording, comprehending procedures, investigating facts, and gathering evidence. Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 27 1 The Court notes that when it appoints counsel, it is pro bono and not with a contingency fee…