Cotton

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 DARRYL COTTON, Case No. 18-cv-325-BAS-MDD 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING EX PARTE MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT

OF COUNSEL

v. [ECF No. 13] LARRY GERACI, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Darryl Cotton followed an ex parte motion for reconsideration “re: appointment of counsel and leave to amend complaint.” (ECF No. 13.) The Court previously stayed Plaintiff’s case until resolution of the parallel state action and denied as moot Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 7.) The stay has since been lifted. Plaintiff now seeks reconsideration of the order denying his request for counsel and also seeks leave to amend. Although Plaintiff titles the motion as one for reconsideration, the Court will simply evaluate his request for counsel. “[T]here is no absolute right to counsel in civil proceedings.” Hedges v. Resolution Tr. Corp. (In re Hedges), 32 F.3d 1360, 1363 (9th Cir. 1994). Thus, || Mallard v. U.S. District Court, 490 U.S. 296, 310…