Edwards

(PC) Cardenas v. Edwards

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJanuary 26, 20212:19-cv-00691California795 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DANNY CARDENAS, JR., No. 2:19-CV-0691-TLN-DMC-P Plaintiff, v. ORDER B.S. EDWARDS, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court are Plaintiff’s motions for the appointment of counsel. ECF Nos. 40, 43. Plaintiff also filed a motion for “investigators for discovery,” which the Court construes as a motion for counsel. ECF No. 33. Defendants oppose the motions. ECF No. 39, 44. 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…

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.