Opinion
1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG
11-16-2022
LUIS MANUEL GARCES, Plaintiff, v. M. GAMBOA, et al., Defendants.
ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO THE ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL
(DOCS. 76 & 86).
Luis Manuel Garces proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has filed an objection (Doc. 86) to the assigned magistrate judge's order denying Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel issued on October 26, 2022. (See Doc. 76.) Plaintiff's objects to the magistrate judge's order on the ground that she did not evaluate the nature and complexity of the factual and legal issues or Plaintiff's ability to investigate the facts and present his claims. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff states that he is hindered in his ability to investigate and present his claims because law library requests can take over two weeks to process. (Id. at 3). Plaintiff further states that in this case, as in another civil action brought by Plaintiff, Defendants have control of Plaintiff's records and other evidence relevant to Plaintiff's claims which leaves Plaintiff at a disadvantage. (Id. at 2-3).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) permits a party to object to non-dispositive orders issued by magistrate judges and requires that the district judge “modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Upon review of the order denying Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel (Doc. 76), the Court finds that the assigned magistrate judge correctly applied the applicable law in finding that the circumstances of this case do not warrant appointment of counsel. Accordingly, Plaintiff's objection (Doc. 86) to the assigned magistrate judge's order (Doc. 76) is OVERRULED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.