Mario Naranjo v. Bobby Thompson

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that plaintiff “was barred from viewing and responding to discovery that defendants had filed under seal”
• stating that the court may consider whether the plaintiff’s “filings reflect basic competency in legal analysis and discovery procedure” when determining whether to appoint counsel
• holding “federal courts have inherent authority to order attorneys to represent litigants without pay”
• finding that the district court did not clearly err in finding exceptional circumstances when the movant “was barred from viewing and responding to discovery that [the] defendants had filed under seal due to security concerns”
• “If the district court appoints counsel on remand, it must then conduct all subsequent proceedings anew, including allowing for reasonable additional discovery.”
• “Even when a plaintiff has nonfrivolous § 1983 claims, a trial court is not required to appoint counsel unless the case presents exceptional circumstances.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).