Quick

(PC) Jackson v. Quick

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMay 6, 20201:19-cv-01591California420 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CORNEL JACKSON, 1:19-cv-01591 EPG (PC)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

v. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

JASON QUICK, et al., (ECF Nos. 4, 9, 13)

Defendant.

16 On November 7, 2019, December 23, 2019, and February 24, 2020, Plaintiff filed motions seeking the appointment of counsel. (ECF Nos. 4, 9, 13). Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek 25 …

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.