Quick

(PC) Torres v. Quick

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaDecember 1, 20221:22-cv-01536California532 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1

2

3

4

5 6 7 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 11 EDWARD TORRES, Case No. 1:22-cv-01536-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 13 FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO v. COUNSEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 JAYSON QUICK, et al., (ECF No. 3)

15

Defendants.

16

17 18 Edward Torres (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed 19 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which includes state law claims. 20 On November 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of pro bono counsel. 21 (ECF No. 3). Plaintiff asks for appointment of counsel because he cannot afford counsel; because 22 his imprisonment will greatly limit his ability to litigate; because he has limited formal education 23 and no knowledge of the law; because the issues involved in this case are complex and will 24 require obtaining documents and video footage from Defendants, as well as significant research 25 and investigation; because his institution of confinement has an inadequate legal research 26 program; because a trial in this…

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.