Cunningham
Cunningham v. Bloxom
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
Plaintiff L.C. Cunningham appeals a judgment based upon a jury verdict in favor of Defendant J.S. Bloxom, on two grounds. First, Plaintiff, who represented himself pro se at trial, asserts that the judgment should be vacated because the district court erred when it failed to recognize it had authority to request volunteer counsel for plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 , or alternatively, that the court abused its discretion when it declined to request the voluntary assistance of counsel. Second, plaintiff asserts that the court abused its discretion by presenting only appellee’s version of a summary of the case to the venire. As the parties are familiar with the facts, we recite them only as necessary. We reverse and remand based upon the second ground.
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to request volunteer counsel to assist plaintiff. Motions for appointment of counsel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(1) (2003), are “addressed to the sound discretion of the court and are granted only in exceptional circumstances.” United States v. McQuade, 579 F.2d 1180, 1181 (9th Cir.1978). The court has an affirmative duty to “assist” a party…