Qureshi

(PC) Young v. Qureshi

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaSeptember 9, 20192:15-cv-02674California391 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DANNY GEROME YOUNG, No. 2: 15-cv-2674 JAM KJN P Plaintiff, v. ORDER MUHAMMAD QURESHI, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is set for jury trial before the Honorable John A. Mendez on January 13, 2020. Plaintiff 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, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must consider plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of…

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.