Rhea

Brannigan v. Rhea

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaDecember 10, 20252:23-cv-00725California439 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 BRANNIGAN, Case No. 2:23-cv-0725-JDP (P) Plaintiff, v. ORDER RHEA, Defendant. 16 Plaintiff has filed a motion to modify the discovery and scheduling order and for the appointment of counsel. ECF No. 45. Plaintiff seeks to extend deadlines by 120 days due to his ongoing medical treatment. Id. Defendant filed a statement of non-opposition to plaintiff’s motion. ECF No. 46. Good cause appears, plaintiff’s motion to modify the scheduling order is granted. Plaintiff also requests that the court appoint counsel. District courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may request an attorney to voluntarily represent such a plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332,…

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.