Ruiz

(PC) Townsend v. Ruiz

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJuly 1, 20202:20-cv-01179California392 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 ARTHUR DEWAYNE TOWNSEND, JR., No. 2:20-cv-1179 KJM AC P Plaintiff, v. ORDER MIKE RUIZ, et al., Defendants. 15 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has requested appointment of counsel. ECF No. 6. In support of this request, he asserts in part that he is unable to afford representation and that because of the coronavirus pandemic, he has limited access to the prison law library. See ECF No. 6 at 1-2. He further asserts that the complexity of the issues in his case as well as his limited knowledge of the law warrant court-appointed counsel. See id. at 1-2. 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. §…

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.