Carroll

Carroll v. California Department of Corrections

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaMay 17, 20213:19-cv-02126California1,136 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 ABONILICO CARROLL, Case No.: 19-cv-2126-BAS-KSC

14 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S v. RENEWED MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, et al., [Doc. No. 42] Defendants. 18 19 20

Plaintiff Abonilico Carroll 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. 1. Before the Court is plaintiff’s renewed Motion for Appointment of Counsel (“Motion” or “Mot.”). Doc. No. 42. For the reasons stated below, plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. /// /// I. BACKGROUND On November 5, 2019, plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that defendants violated his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Doc. No. 1. Since the dismissal of his initial complaint, plaintiff has filed two amended…

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.