Vasquez
(PC) Cortinas v. Vasquez
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 LARRY WILLIAM CORTINAS, Case No. 1:19-cv-00367-NONE-SKO (PC)
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
v. FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
VASQUEZ, et al., (Doc. 33)
Defendants. 16 Plaintiff requests the appointment of counsel to represent him in this action. (Doc. 33.) Plaintiffs do not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in section 1983 actions, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent a party under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 304-05 (1989). However, in “exceptional circumstances,” the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. Given that the Court has no reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek volunteer counsel only in extraordinary cases. In determining whether “exceptional circumstances…