Kendall

(PC) Wells v. Kendall

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaNovember 15, 20192:17-cv-02709California663 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ANDRE WELLS, No. 2:17-cv-2709 AC P Plaintiff, v. ORDER R. KENDALL, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff has filed a motion to strike defendants’ request for judicial notice filed October 15, 2019 (ECF No. 53). ECF No. 57. Defendants’ request was denied by the undersigned on October 22, 2019. ECF No. 56. Therefore, the motion to strike will be denied. Plaintiff has also filed a supplement to his previously denied motion for appointment of counsel that will be construed as a renewed motion for counsel. ECF No. 58. 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 assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 26 …

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.