Rucker

Williams v. Rucker

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaSeptember 18, 20193:19-cv-00468California674 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RICKY L. WILLIAMS, Case No.: 19CV468 LAB (BGS)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

v. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

RUCKER, Correctional Officer, et al., [ECF 19] Defendants. 16 Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (ECF 19.) Plaintiff seeks appointment of counsel for the following reasons: (1) cannot afford to hire a lawyer; (2) his incarceration will limit his ability to litigate this case that he believes will involve substantial investigation and discovery; (3) the issues in the case are complex for someone, like Plaintiff, that has not previously litigated a case; (4) trial will involve conflicting testimony, and (5) Plaintiff has been unable to obtain counsel despite contacting a civil rights attorney. (Id.) “[T]here is no constitutional right to appointed counsel for § 1983 claims.” Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Palmer v. Valdez, 26 …

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.