Babcock

(PC) Anderson v. Babcock

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJune 6, 20252:24-cv-00977California506 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 TERRANCE ANDERSON, No. 2:24-CV-0977-KJM-DMC-P Plaintiff, v. ORDER C. BABCOCK, et al., Defendants.

17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel, 19 ECF No. 20. 20 The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to 21 require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. See Mallard v. United States Dist. 22 Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the district court may 23 request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Terrell v. 24 Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 25 (9th Cir. 1990). The test for “exceptional circumstances” requires the Court to evaluate the 26 plaintiff’s likelihood success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to…

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.