Moore
Moore v. Duran
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MERRICK MOORE, Case No.: 23-cv-194-GPC-DDL
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
v. MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL
J.J. DURAN, et al., [Dkt. No. 30] Defendants. 16 Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Merrick Moore’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (the “Motion”). Dkt. No. 30. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed his complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on February 1, 2023, alleging Defendants violated his rights under the United States Constitution. Dkt. No. 1. On March 9, 2023, the District Court, having conducted the sua sponte screening required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, found that “the factual allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint involve plausible Eighth Amendment excessive force violations that are ‘sufficient to meet the low threshold for proceeding past the…