Baughman

(PC) Perryman v. Baughman

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaNovember 4, 20212:21-cv-00337California1,931 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DAVID PERRYMAN, No. 2:21-cv-0337 KJN P Plaintiff, v. ORDER CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS AND

REHABILITATION, et al., Defendants. 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 29, 2021, plaintiff filed two requests that the court appoint counsel. As plaintiff was previously advised (ECF No. 22), 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 plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must consider plaintiff’s

In his second motion,…

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.