DiTomas

(PC) Birrell v. DiTomas

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJanuary 27, 20252:22-cv-01528California574 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID WESLEY BIRRELL, No. 2:22-cv-01528-KJM-EFB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 MICHELE DiTOMAS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has filed a motion to appoint counsel. ECF No. 31. The motion also 19 seeks to have the court appoint an expert witness. Id. at 1-2. Defendants have not responded to 20 plaintiff’s motion. For the reasons stated hereafter, plaintiff’s motion is denied. 21 Motion for Appointment of Counsel 22 District courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 23 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional 24 cases, the court may request an attorney to voluntarily represent such a plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 25 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 26 F.2d 1332, 1335-36…

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.