Gomez

(PC) McElroy v. Gomez

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJune 12, 20201:20-cv-00658California587 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LATWAHN MCELROY, ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-00658-SAB (PC) ) Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, v. ) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL

GOMEZ, et al., ) ) [ECF No. 9] Defendants. ) ) ) ) )

Plaintiff Latwahn McElroy is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, filed on June 11, 2020. 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 any 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 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court 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.