Newsom

(PC) Casto v. Newsom

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMarch 2, 20212:19-cv-02209California925 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 HERSHEL WAYNE CASTRO, II, Case No. 2:19-cv-02209-KJM-JDP (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF

v. COUNSEL, (2) GRANTING IN PART

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR SUBPOENA

NEWSOME, et al., FORMS, AND (3) GRANTING THE

PARTIES’ JOINT MOTION TO MODIFY

Defendants. THE DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING

ORDER

16 ECF Nos. 30, 31, 33

18 Plaintiff, an inmate proceeding without counsel and in forma pauperis, has filed a motion for appointment of counsel. ECF Nos. 30. Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, see Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court lacks the authority to require an attorney to represent plaintiff. See Mallard v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). I may request the voluntary assistance of counsel. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (“The court may request an…

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.