(PC) Taylor v. Commissioner of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10
11 PRESTON TAYLOR, ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-00798-NONE-SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 13 v. ) APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, WITHOUT
PREJUDICE
14 COMMISSIONER OF CALIFORNIA ) DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND ) (ECF No. 32) 15 REHABILITATION, et al., ) ) 16 ) Defendants. ) 17 )
18 Plaintiff Preston Taylor is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 19 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, filed April 1, 2021. 21 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. 22 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require any attorney to represent 23 plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern 24 District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However,…