Luevanos

(PC) Bolds v. Luevanos

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaNovember 30, 20211:21-cv-01668California575 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JON-ERIK ROOSEVELT BOLDS, JR., ) Case No. 1:21-cv-01668-NONE-SAB (PC) ) Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR v. ) APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

LEUVANOS, et al., ) ) (ECF No. 8) Defendants. ) ) )

Plaintiff Jon-Erik Roosevelt Bolds, Jr., is 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 for appointment of counsel, filed November 29, 2021. Plaintiff asks for appointment of counsel because he is unable to afford counsel; h a trial would likely involve conflicting testimony; the issues in this case are complex; and he has not been able to obtain a lawyer on his own. (ECF No. 8.) There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require any attorney to represent…

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.