(PC) Duncan v. California Healthcare Receivership Corp.

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaOctober 14, 20201:20-cv-01288California373 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DIONTAE JOHAN DUNCAN, Case No. 1:20-cv-01288-SKO (PC)

12 Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

13 v. FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

14 CALIFORNIA HEALTHCARE (Doc. 12) RECEIVERSHIP CORP., et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff requests the appointment of counsel to represent him in this action. (Doc. 12.) 18 Plaintiffs do not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in section 1983 actions, Rand v. 19 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney to 20 represent a party under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 21 304-05 (1989). However, in “exceptional circumstances,” the Court may request the voluntary 22 assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 23 Given that the Court has no reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the 24 Court will seek volunteer counsel only in extraordinary cases. In determining whether 25 “exceptional…

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.