Emerson

(PC) Dillingham v. Emerson

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaAugust 26, 20201:18-cv-00507California588 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JERRY DILLINGHAM, Case No. 1:18-cv-00507-AWI-SAB (PC) 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S FIFTH MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF v. COUNSEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE

N. EMERSON, et al., (ECF No. 83)

14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff Jerry Dillingham is a state prisoner 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 fifth motion for appointment of counsel, filed August 21, 2020. As Plaintiff was previously advised, he 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 may request the voluntary assistance of…

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.