Munoz

(PC) Harris v. Munoz

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaOctober 22, 20192:16-cv-00830California673 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 GRADY HARRIS, No. 2:16-cv-0830 TLN DB P Plaintiff, v. ORDER JEFF MACOMBER, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 70). This is plaintiff’s fifth motion of this kind. (See generally ECF Nos. 9, 14, 20, 29). Plaintiff has also filed a motion for the court clerk to issue subpoenas directing prison officials to bring records to a deposition that took place on October 18, 2019. (ECF No. 71). For the reasons stated below, the court will deny both motions. I. MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 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 court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d…

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.