Fuchs

(PS) Sermeno v. Fuchs

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaSeptember 5, 20242:23-cv-02624California316 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 LARRY ALTAMIRANO SERMENO, No. 2:23-CV-2624-TLN-DMC Plaintiff, v. ORDER ERICK FUCHS, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's request for the appointment of counsel. See ECF No. 3. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent plaintiffs in civil actions. See e.g. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). In the present case, the Court does not at this time find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff's request for the appointment of counsel is…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.