Espitia
Ernest R. Morales v. Gustavo Espitia, et al.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ERNEST R. MORALES, No. 1:25-cv-000189-SAB (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR COUNSEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE
v. (ECF No. 31) GUSTAVO ESPITIA, et al.,
15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, filed October 14, 2025. (ECF No. 31.) Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require any attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. /// Without a reasonable method of…