CDCR

(PC) Van Huisen v. CDCR

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaSeptember 30, 20242:23-cv-02900California2,110 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 GREGORY SCOTT VAN HUISEN, No. 2:23-cv-02900-DJC-EFB (PC) Plaintiff, v. ORDER CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS AND

REHABILITATION, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has also filed a motion for appointment of counsel, a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and a motion for status and to allow the action to proceed on plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint. For the reasons that follow, plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel will be denied, his motion to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted, his motion for status will be denied, and the fourth amended complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend. Motion for Appointment of Counsel District courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490…

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.