Perdomo v. Plumber
- Beth Freeman
- 5:17-cv-06962
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Perdomo v. Plumber, Judge Freeman denied Carlos Perdomo’s second request for appointed counsel without prejudice.
Carlos Perdomo, a state prisoner representing himself, was affected by the denial of his second motion for appointment of counsel.
What happened
In Perdomo v. Plumber, Carlos Perdomo, a state prisoner representing himself, asked the court to appoint a lawyer for his case against prison officials. He said he could not afford a lawyer, had limited law-library access, and lacked legal education.
The court found that Perdomo had not provided new information beyond his first request and that his reasons were similar to those raised by other prisoners representing themselves. It denied his second request for appointed counsel without prejudice.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman issued the October 10, 2019 order, which terminated the docket entry for the motion.
The detailed version
- Perdomo v. Plumber · No. 5:17-cv-06962
- Beth Freeman
- Oct. 10, 2019
Background
Carlos Perdomo, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison officials at Salinas Valley State Prison. He filed a second motion asking the court to appoint counsel.
Perdomo stated that he lacked income to hire a lawyer, had limited access to the law library, and had no legal education. The opinion also notes that he had made a first motion for appointment of counsel.
Ruling
The court concluded that Perdomo had not offered any new information that was absent from his first motion. It also found that his reasons were no different from those presented by other prisoners representing themselves. The court therefore denied the second motion for appointment of counsel without prejudice for lack of exceptional circumstances. The order terminated Docket No. 38.
Effect
This order addressed only Perdomo’s request for appointed counsel. It did not decide the underlying civil-rights claims described in the opinion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.