Mohyuddin

(PC) Dunham v. Mohyuddin

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaSeptember 25, 20242:23-cv-02757California698 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RANDALL DUNHAM, No. 2:23-CV-2757-DMC-P Plaintiff, v. ORDER ALIASGHAR MOHYUDDIN, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s third motion for the appointment of counsel, ECF No. 25. Plaintiff’s two prior motion were denied on December 13, 2023, ECF No. 9, and March 11, 2024, ECF No. 19. Also before the Court is Plaintiff's motion directing Defendants to respond to Plaintiff's complaint, ECF No. 21. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. See 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 26 …

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.