Carroll

Carroll v. California Department of Corrections

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaAugust 9, 20213:19-cv-02126California1,319 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. THIRD MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, et al., [Doc. No. 69] Defendants. 18 19 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. 69. This is plaintiff’s third request for counsel. See Doc. Nos. 33, 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. Plaintiff’s Second 1 …

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.