Khoo
(PC) Gray v. Khoo
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DANA GRAY, Case No. 1:20-cv-01047-DAD-SAB (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE
A. KHOO, et al., (ECF No. 58) Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Dana Gray 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 December 20, 2021. (ECF No. 58.) Plaintiff 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 Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). …