Messinger

(PC) Bland v. Messinger

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaNovember 29, 20212:20-cv-00051California631 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 JOSHUA DAVIS BLAND, No. 2:20-cv-0051 KJM DB P Plaintiff, v. ORDER JON A. MESSINGER, et al., Defendants. 15 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims defendants subjected him to verbal harassment and used excessive force against him. Presently before the court is plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 32.) In support of his motion1 plaintiff requests the appointment of counsel to “safe guard his rights, etc.” (ECF No. 32 at 1.) Plaintiff has also cited California Government Code § 100(a) and § 54950 both of which discuss the sovereignty of the citizens of California. He further argues

1 The caption of plaintiff’s filing is “Ex Parte Request for Appointment of Counsel pursuant to Law.” The court is uncertain what plaintiff means by “ex parte.” Typically, an ex parte filing is 25 one to which the opposing party does…

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.