Bird

(PC) Taylor v. Bird

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJanuary 6, 20212:20-cv-02007California328 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 ARTHUR TAYLOR, No. 2:20-cv-2007 DB P Plaintiff, v. ORDER LANDON BIRD, et al., Defendants. 15 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has requested appointment of counsel because of alleged obfuscation by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation when defending against claims brought by prisoners. 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. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). The test for exceptional circumstances requires the court to evaluate the plaintiff’s likelihood of…

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.