Mascorro

I. BACKGROUND

23 On October 5, 2021, Plaintiff Eloy Mascorro, proceeding pro se, filed the present 24 action against Defendants the City of San Diego, the San Diego Police Department, the 25 San Diego Chief of Police, and unnamed police officers (“Officers 1–4”). Mascorro alleges 26 that Defendants violated his or her constitutional rights by detaining, searching, seizing, 27 and arresting him or her without probable cause and damaging his or her seized property. 28 Mascorro alleges that, in the process, several police officers committed perjury as to the cause for the arrest. In addition, Mascorro alleges that the officers acted in retaliation against Mascorro for making complaints about police misconduct. Mascorro moves for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 2) and for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) (ECF No. 3). The Court finds the motions suitable for determination on the papers submitted and without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); Civ. L.R. 7.1(d)(1). For the following reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel and GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed IFP. 9 II. …