(PC)Hopkins

(PC)Hopkins v. State of California

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaDecember 3, 20202:20-cv-02084California470 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 MICHAEL HOPKINS, No. 2:20-cv-2084 AC P Plaintiff, v. ORDER STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants. 15 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has requested appointment of counsel. ECF No. 9. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. In support of the motion to appoint counsel, plaintiff has filed a document signed by a prison official which states that plaintiff claims to have disabilities of low cognitive functioning and visual impairment. See ECF No. 9 at 2. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the district court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §…

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.