Hartley
Hartley v. Bright
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ROGER ANDREW HARTLEY, Case No. 23-cv-00767 BLF (PR)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
Plaintiff, APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL v.
D. BRIGHT, et al.,
15 Defendants. (Docket No. 3)
17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed the instant pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison officials and medical personnel at Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”), where he is currently confined, and the Director of the California Correctional Health Care Services (“CCHCS”). Dkt. No. 2-3. The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. No. 2, such that the full filing fee is currently due by July 28, 2023. Dkt. No. 5. Along with the complaint, Plaintiff filed a motion to appoint counsel based on his “learning and communication disability” due to dyslexia. Dkt. No. 3. There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case unless an indigent litigant may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. …