Macomber

(PC) Wilkins v. Macomber

Bad Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaDecember 21, 20202:16-cv-00475California666 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 KEENAN WILKINS, No. 2:16-CV-0475-TLN-DMC-P Plaintiff, v. ORDER JEFF MACOMBER, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel and modification discovery deadlines. ECF No. 42. The Court denies the motion for appointment of counsel but will extend discovery by 30 days. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. See Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). 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.