Quick

(PC) Jackson v. Quick

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaDecember 6, 20211:19-cv-01591California478 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 11 CORNEL JACKSON, Case No. 1:19-cv-01591-NONE-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SIXTH MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRO v. BONO COUNSEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 JASON QUICK, et al., (ECF No. 96) 15 Defendants. 16 Cornel Jackson (“Plaintiff”) is a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 3, 2021, Plaintiff filed his sixth motion for appointment of pro bono counsel. (ECF Nos. 4, 9, 13, 28, 58, 96). Generally, Plaintiff asks for appointment of counsel because his confinement limits his ability to litigate, the issues involved in this case are complex and will require significant research and investigation, and he is unable to afford counsel. Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998), and the Court cannot…

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.