Gill

(PC) Wolinski v. Gill

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaFebruary 6, 20202:19-cv-02369California413 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 KRZYSZTOF WOLINSKI, No. 2:19-cv-2369 WBS DB P Plaintiff, v. ORDER GUSHARN GILL, et al., Defendants. 15 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has requested appointment of counsel. Plaintiff argues that this case has complex issues; he suffered a traumatic brain injury in 2016 which resulted in memory, concentration and other problems; and he has very limited English language ability. 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. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). The test for exceptional…

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.