Shteynberg

Shteynberg v. Sammartino

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaFebruary 25, 20223:21-cv-01827California1,055 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RUDOLPH SHTEYNBERG, Case No. 21-cv-01827-BAS-JLB

Plaintiff,

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

v. JUDGE JANIS SAMMARTINIO, Defendant. 16 I. BACKGROUND In this action filed on October 27, 2021, Plaintiff Rudolph Shteynberg alleges that United States District Judge Janis Sammartino discriminated against him based on his status as an indigent litigant by denying him appointment of counsel in the prior, closed actions he filed in 2017, over which Judge Sammartino presided. The Court ordered Shteynberg to show cause why this action should not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. (Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) at 3, ECF No. 4 (explaining that (1) this Court has no authority to reverse Judge Sammartino’s factual findings that Shteynberg did not satisfy the standards for appointment of counsel in the 2017 actions; (2) any motion for reconsideration should be filed in the underlying 27 …

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.