Santoro

(PC) Hardy v. Santoro

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaSeptember 6, 20221:21-cv-00327California702 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 11 KRISTIN HARDY, Case No. 1:21-cv-00327-ADA-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO v. COUNSEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE

R. MORENO, et al., (ECF No. 76)

Defendants.

17 Kristin Hardy (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of pro bono counsel. (ECF No. 76). Plaintiff asks for appointment of counsel because he is not able to conduct his own investigation due to his confinement; because discovery is likely to yield little evidence needed to prove his claim; because counsel may be able to figure out why defendant Ceballos has refused to appear; and because counsel could help Plaintiff handle objections and other matters related to his deposition. Plaintiff also argues that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) gives the Court authority to appoint…

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.