Quick

(PC) Jackson v. Quick

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaDecember 5, 20221:19-cv-01591California503 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1

2

3

4

5 6 7 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 11 CORNEL JACKSON, Case No. 1:19-cv-01591-JLT-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SEVENTH 13 MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF PRO v. BONO COUNSEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 JASON QUICK, et al., (ECF No. 129) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Cornel Jackson is a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 18 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 On December 1, 2022, Plaintiff filed his seventh motion for appointment of pro bono 20 counsel. (ECF Nos. 4, 9, 13, 28, 58, 96, 129). Generally, Plaintiff moves for appointment of 21 counsel because his confinement limits his ability to litigate, the issues involved in this case are 22 complex and will require significant research and investigation, and he is unable to afford 23 counsel. 24 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 25 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 26 (9th Cir. 1998), and the Court cannot…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.