Vasquez
(PC) Cortinas v. Vasquez
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 LARRY WILLIAM CORTINAS, Case No. 1:19-cv-00367-NONE-SKO (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
v. (Doc. 17) VASQUEZ, et al., Defendants.
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel. (Doc. 17.) Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this civil action, see Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent a party 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 request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. Given that the Court has no reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether “exceptional circumstances exist, a district court must…