Mascrenas

Mascrenas v. Wagner

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaAugust 3, 20203:19-cv-02014California2,673 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 Case No.: 19cv2014-WQH(BLM) RICHARD MASCRENAS,

Plaintiff ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL

v. [ECF No. 25] OFFICER WAGNER, Defendant. 14 On March 30, 2020, Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding and , submitted a Motion to Appoint Counsel that was received on April 2, 2020. ECF Nos. 11 and 12; see also ECF No. 5 (order granting motion to proceed ). In support of his Motion, Plaintiff alleged that (1) he could not afford a lawyer, (2) his imprisonment limited his ability to litigate his case, (3) he is a “lay person without experience and knowledge on law,” and (4) that he was reliant upon another inmate, who would soon be transferring to another prison, to assist him with his case. ECF No. 12 at 1-2. The Court denied Plaintiff’s request on April 14, 2020, finding that Plaintiff failed to establish the requisite “exceptional circumstances” to justify the appointment of counsel. ECF No. 13. On April 22, 2020,…

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.