(PC) Singh v. Sacramento County

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaNovember 14, 20242:23-cv-00055California504 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RAGHVENDRA SINGH, also known as No. 2:23-CV-0055-DAD-DMC-P Raj Singh, 12 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 14 SACRAMENTO COUNTY, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's renewed motion for the appointment of counsel. See ECF No. 16. 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 district 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). The test for “exceptional circumstances” requires the Court to evaluate the plaintiff’s likelihood success on the merits and the…

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.