Burden

(PC) Rood v. Burden

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaFebruary 22, 20221:20-cv-00315California585 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

COLTON JAMES ROOD, ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-00315-AWI-BAK (SAB) (PC) ) Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR v. ) APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

BURDEN, et al., ) ) (ECF No. 39) Defendants. ) ) )

Plaintiff Colton James Rood 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 February 18, 2022. Plaintiff asks for appointment of counsel because he is unable to afford counsel; his imprisonment limits his ability to litigate the action; a trial is likely to involve conflicting testimony; and he has been unable to obtain counsel on his own. (ECF No. 39.) 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…

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.