Netherby

(PC) Rogers v. Netherby

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaOctober 20, 20202:20-cv-01478California442 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MAURCIE DIAUNDRA ROGERS, No. 2:20-CV-1478-DTLN-MC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 WILLIAM NETHERBY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s motions for the appointment of 19 counsel. See ECF Nos. 9 and 10. 20 The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to 21 require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. See Mallard v. United States Dist. 22 Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the Court may request the 23 voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 24 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). 25 A finding of “exceptional circumstances” requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success 26 on the merits and the ability of the…

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.