Cate

(PC) Rodriguez v. Cate

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJuly 1, 20202:19-cv-01797California426 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ERICK EDDIE RODRIGUEZ, No. 2:19-cv-1797 AC P Plaintiff, v. ORDER MATTHEW CATE, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has requested appointment of counsel. ECF No. 3. In support of his request, plaintiff states in part that he is unable to afford counsel and that his imprisonment will greatly limit his ability to litigate. See id. He further contends that the issues in his case are very complex, that he has limited knowledge of the law and that he has limited access to his prison’s law library. See id. 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.…

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.