Baughman

(PC) Petillo v. Baughman

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaNovember 2, 20202:19-cv-00667California571 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 SIDNEY PETILLO, No. 2:19-CV-0667-TLN-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 HAINEY, et al., 15 Defendants. 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: (1) Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of 19 counsel, ECF No. 55; and (2) Plaintiff’s “motion” for referral of this matter to the Court’s 20 alternative dispute resolution program, ECF No. 56. 21 The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to 22 require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. See Mallard v. United States Dist. 23 Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the 24 voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 25 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). 26 A finding of “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.