Wilkins

(PC) Felde v. Wilkins

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMarch 31, 20201:19-cv-00339California429 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DRAKE FELDE, Case No. 1:19-cv-00339-JDP

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

v. ECF Nos. 13, 16 D. WILKINS, et al., Defendants.

17 Plaintiff Drake Felde, a state prisoner without counsel, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has filed two motions requesting appointment of counsel. ECF Nos. 13, 16. He submits that he has autism and ADHD, has limited access to the law library, and has not been able to successfully obtain an attorney. Id. Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, see Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), withdrawn in part on other grounds on reh’g en banc, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998), and the court lacks the authority to require an attorney to represent plaintiff, see Mallard v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). We 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.