(PC) Khademi v. Roseville Police Department

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaSeptember 30, 20212:21-cv-00966California505 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DAVOOD KHADEMI, No. 2:21-CV-0966-JAM-DMC-P Plaintiff, v. ORDER ROSEVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s motions, ECF No. 8 and 12, for the appointment of counsel. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. See Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). A finding of “exceptional circumstances” requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the…

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.