Opinion
2:24-cv-01566-JCC-BAT
10-28-2024
TRAVIS CLINTON COLEMAN, Plaintiff, v. C. MERRITT, et al., Defendant.
ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION FOR COUNSEL, DKT. 9
BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before the Court is Plaintiff's second or supplemental motion for appointment of counsel. Dkt. 9. Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging (1) Defendants assaulted and injured him on August 10, 2024; (2) he was denied adequate medical care for injuries suffered in the assault; and (3) following the assault, he was placed in restrictive custody without a hearing. Dkt. 5.
Plaintiff first moved for counsel contending he cannot afford to hire a lawyer; incarceration makes it difficult to research and investigate his case; he has mental conditions that impair him; and counsel would be better able to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses at a trial. Dkt. 7. The Court denied this motion finding Plaintiff's case does not involve exceptional circumstances; that Plaintiff can articulate his claims as a pro se litigant; the case involves straightforward allegations that defendants assaulted and injured him, that he was denied medical care for these injuries, and that Plaintiff was placed into restrictive custody following the assault; and that Plaintiff's likelihood of succeeding is unclear at this early stage. See Order Denying Counsel, Dkt. 8.
After the Court issued its order denying counsel, Plaintiff filed another motion for counsel entitled “supplemental” indicating he has filed grievances regarding “pro se materials” such as the case number assigned in his case. The Court finds these allegations are not grounds to appoint counsel and accordingly ORDERS: (1) the motion for appointment of counsel, Dkt. 9 is DENIED without prejudice; and (2) a copy of this order shall be provided to plaintiff.