Navarro
(PC) Dixon v. Navarro
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DELMAR JEWELL DIXON, Jr., Case No. 2:19-cv-01966-KJM-JDP (PC)
Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS
TO APPOINT COUNSEL
v. ECF No. 33 DANIEL NAVARRO,
Defendant. 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has filed a motion that request that he be appointed counsel. ECF No. 33. Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, see Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court lacks the authority to require an attorney to represent plaintiff. See Mallard v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). The court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (“The court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel”); Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, without a means to compensate counsel, the