Molina

Molina v. Dinh

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaMarch 24, 20233:21-cv-01593California1,305 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 ANDREW S. MOLINA, Case No.: 21CV1593-BTM(BLM)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

v. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL

DR. VU DINH,

15 [EFC No. 36] Defendants. 17 18 On March 16, 2023, Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding and , submitted a Motion to Appoint Counsel. ECF No. 36; see also ECF No. 5 (order granting motion to proceed in ). In support of his motion, Plaintiff alleges that counsel should be appointed because: (1) he is unable to afford an attorney; (2) his imprisonment limits his ability to litigate since he has limited access to the law library and limited knowledge of the law; (3) his case is complex; (4) a lawyer would be better equipped to present evidence and cross examine witnesses at trial where there will likely be conflicting testimony; (5) he is unable to contact certain witnesses employed at a different institution; and (6) the lawyer would be able to…

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.