Kelso

(PC) McCoy v. Kelso

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJuly 12, 20211:12-cv-00983California499 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH RAYMOND MCCOY, ) Case No.: 1:12-cv-000983-AWI-SAB (PC) ) Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SEVENTH v. ) MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL,

AND GRANTING FOURTH MOTION FOR

STRONACH, et al., ) EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OBJECTIONS ) Defendants. ) (ECF Nos. 287, 288) ) )

Plaintiff Joseph Raymond McCoy is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 9, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of counsel, and fourth motion for extension of time to file objections to the pending Findings and Recommendations. As Plaintiff is well aware, he does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require any attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District 24 …

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.