Salmen

Salmen v. California Department of Correction Rehabilitation

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaJanuary 12, 20213:20-cv-02088California1,854 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JUSTIN SALMEN, CDCR #BK-5881, Case No.: 3:20-cv-02088-GPC-KSC

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

v. RECONSIDERATION OF COURT’S

DECEMBER 18, 2020 ORDER

CALIFORNIA DEP’T OF

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

CORRECTIONS AND

TO APPOINT COUNSEL

REHABILITATION; S. ROBERTS; M.

GLYNN; J. HODGES; A. KENDALL; [Doc. No. 14]

DR. CHAU; H. FRANKLIN; S.

ANDERSON; A. SHITTU; S. GATES,

18 Defendants.

Plaintiff Justin Salmen (“plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging defendants violated his rights under the United States Constitution. See Doc. No. 7. Before the Court is a document titled “Motion for Appointment of Counsel” (the “Motion”) in which plaintiff reiterates his request to have counsel appointed and objects to the Court’s December 14, 2020 Notice of Document Discrepancy. Doc. No. 14; see also Doc. No. 10. …

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.