Andres

(PC) Tate v. Andres

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaOctober 4, 20192:18-cv-00822California535 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DEREK TATE, No. 2:18-cv-0822 AC P Plaintiff, v. ORDER J. ANDRES, Defendant. 16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has requested appointment of counsel. ECF No. 27. He is requesting counsel because he is “unable to afford counsel,” his “incarceration will greatly limit [his] ability to litigate effectively,” he has limited knowledge of the law and limited access to the law library, he is experiencing retaliation by prison officials in the form of lost or destroyed property, and counsel would be better able to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses at trial. Id. at 2-4. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the district court may request the voluntary…

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.