Soto

(PC) Miller v. Soto

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaSeptember 3, 20211:20-cv-01117California590 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER J. MILLER, ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-01117-AWI-SAB (PC) ) Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION v. ) FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

SERGEANT M. SOTO, ) ) (ECF No. 36) Defendant. ) ) ) ) )

Plaintiff Christopher Miller is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, filed September 1, 2021. There is no 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 Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court may request…

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.