Ju

(PC) Bivins v. Ju

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJuly 6, 20202:16-cv-00389California488 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JOSEPH BIVINS, No. 2:16-cv-0389 MCE KJN P Plaintiff, v. ORDER DR. JEU, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 14, 2020, the undersigned recommended that defendant Borges’ motion for summary judgment be granted. Plaintiff did not file objections. Rather, on May 15, 2020, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal and a request for appointment of counsel. Plaintiff’s appeal was processed to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On June 26, 2020, the appellate court dismissed plaintiff’s appeal. Plaintiff requests that the court appoint counsel. District courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may request an attorney to voluntarily represent such a plaintiff. See 28…

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.