Speidell

(PC) Jones v. Speidell

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaOctober 9, 20191:16-cv-01335California440 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CHARLES B. JONES, Case No.: 1:16-cv-01335-DAD-JLT (PC)

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

v. (Doc. #47) R. SPEIDELL, et al., Defendants. 16 On September 25, 2019, Plaintiff Charles B. Jones filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. (Doc. 47.) Plaintiffs do not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in section 1983 actions, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent plaintiffs under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 304-05 (1989). However, in “exceptional circumstances,” the Court may 21 request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 22 1525. 23 The Court will seek volunteer counsel only in extraordinary cases. In determining 24 whether “exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must evaluate both the likelihood of 25 success on the merits [and] the…

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.