Kelso

(PC) McCoy v. Kelso

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaSeptember 16, 20201:12-cv-00983California654 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH RAYMOND MCCOY, ) Case No.: 1:12-cv-000983-AWI-SAB (PC) ) Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, v. ) PLAINTIFF’S SEVENTH MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

STRONACH, et al., ) ) (ECF No. 252) Defendants. ) ) )

Plaintiff Joseph Raymond McCoy is appearing 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 seventh motion for appointment of counsel, filed September 15, 2020. As Plaintiff is well aware, 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…

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.