Wallace

(PC) Kahaku v. Wallace

Bad Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJune 25, 20212:20-cv-01807California502 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DANIEL KAHAKU, No. 2:20-cv-1807 KJN P Plaintiff, v. ORDER K. WALLANCE, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff requests that the court appoint counsel. As set forth below, plaintiff’s motion is denied. Plaintiff’s Complaint Plaintiff alleges that defendants K. Wallace, A. Bustamante, T. Freitas, J. Vina, E. Speer, J. Canela, N. Hang, and G. Ellis conspired to retaliate against plaintiff by conducting multiple retaliatory cell searches because plaintiff filed lawsuits in which plaintiff received monetary settlements. (ECF No. 8.) Governing Standards District courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may request an attorney to voluntarily represent such a…

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.