Reed v. Paramo

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MYCHAL ANDRA REED, Case No.: 18-cv-00361-JLS-DEB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S v. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DANIEL PARAMO, et al., [DKT. NO. 157] 15 Defendants.

17 Before the Court is Petitioner Mychal Andra Reed’s “Motion for Counsel.”

18 Dkt. No. 157. The Court denied each of Plaintiff’s past three motions for appointment of counsel for lack of exceptional circumstances, with the last order filed January 10, 2020.

20 Dkt. Nos. 54, 87, 97 (motion for reconsideration of court order denying appointment of counsel), 103 (January 10, 2020 order denying reconsideration). On July 13, 2020, Plaintiff filed this (his fourth) request, claiming he is receiving “persistent ‘retaliation’ by Defendants” and does not have the resources or legal knowledge to litigate his claims without counsel. Dkt. No. 157 at 1–2. Plaintiff specifically requests the Court appoint Alex Coolman to represent him. Id. at 2.

26 The Court has carefully reviewed the pleadings and does not find the required exceptional circumstances present for appointment of counsel. See Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). Further, Plaintiff does not provide any basis || for reconsideration of the Court’s prior rulings pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1.@). Plaintiff ||may retain Mr. Coolman on his own accord, however, the Court DENIES □□□□□□□□□□□ ||request to appoint counsel for the reasons stated in its prior orders. Plaintiffs motion, || therefore, is DENIED.

5 IT IS SO ORDERED.

6 Dated: August 10, 2020 DwudPlion Honorable Daniel E. Butcher United States Magistrate Judge