Davydon
Ricardo Martinez v. Rostislav Davydon, et al.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RICARDO MARTINEZ, Case No. 1:25-cv-01504-KES-HBK (PC)
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS
v. FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL ROSTISLAV DAVYDON, et al., (Doc. Nos. 3, 7, 13) Defendants. 16 Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s motions to appoint counsel filed on August 26, 2025, October 28, 2025, and November 20, 2025, respectively. (Doc. Nos. 3, 7, 13). Each of Plaintiff’s motions consist of only one page and each seek appointment because (1) Plaintiff cannot afford legal representation, (2) Plaintiff has a limited knowledge of the law, and (3) this case will likely involve conflicting testimony that counsel would better present. The United States Constitution does not require appointment of counsel in civil cases. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354 (1996) (explaining Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1996), did not create a right to appointment of counsel in civil cases). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, this…