Petras

(PC) Ray v. Petras

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaAugust 27, 20202:19-cv-01865California940 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ANTHONY D. RAY, No. 2:19-cv-1865-KJM-EFB P Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

ONGNEN PETRAS, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the court are plaintiff’s August 19, 2020 motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 29) and his August 10, 2020 motion for a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 25). Both motions must be denied. I. Motion for Counsel As the court’s prior orders informed plaintiff (ECF Nos. 20 and 27), 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 exceptional circumstances, the court may request an attorney to voluntarily to represent such a plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood 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.