Vasquez

(PC) Cortinas v. Vasquez

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaOctober 28, 20201:19-cv-00367California371 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LARRY WILLIAM CORTINAS, Case No. 1:19-cv-00367-NONE-SKO (PC)

12 Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

13 v. FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

14 VASQUEZ, et al., (Doc. 33)

15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff requests the appointment of counsel to represent him in this action. (Doc. 33.) 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 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.