Moore

Moore v. Duran

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaApril 22, 20243:23-cv-00194California1,585 words

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. SECOND MOTION TO APPOINT

COUNSEL

J.J. DURAN, et al.,

Defendants. [Dkt. No. 57] 16 Before the Court is Plaintiff Merrick Moore’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (the “Motion”). Dkt. No. 57. This is Plaintiff’s second request for Court-appointed counsel. See Dkt. Nos. 30, 34. 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 used excessive force and sexually assaulted him, in violation of his Constitutional rights. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff’s complaint survived the screening required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and was subsequently served on Defendants. See Dkt. Nos. 4, 8, 21. On September 29, 2023, the Court…

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.