Moore

Moore v. Lankford

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaJanuary 14, 20213:19-cv-02406California1,372 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Case No.: 19CV2406-DMS (BLM) ROBERT MOORE,

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S THIRD

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF

v. COUNSEL

JOE LANKFORD, MERCEDES ARELLANO, R. [ECF No. 37]

BUCKEL, AND DAVID STROMSKI,

15 Defendants. 16 17 18 On June 30, 2020, Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding and , submitted a Motion for Appointment of Counsel that was received on July 6, 2020. ECF Nos. 19 and 20; see also ECF No. 6 (order granting motion to proceed ). Plaintiff argued that (1) he was “unable to afford counsel,” (2) his imprisonment limited his ability to litigate his case, and (3) “counsel would better enable plaintiff to present evidence and cross examine witnesses.” ECF No. 20 at 1-2. On July 9, 2020, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for failing to allege exceptional circumstances. ECF No. 21. On August 16, 2020, Plaintiff submitted a second motion for appointment of counsel that was received on August 21, 2020 and accepted…

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.