Sutton

(PC) Washington v. Sutton

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJuly 26, 20221:20-cv-00983California536 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ISAIAH WASHINGTON, 1:20-cv-00983 AWI-GSA-PC Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

v. (ECF No. 39.) SUTTON, et al.,

Defendants. 16 On July 6, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. 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 an 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). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the Court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases. In determining whether “exceptional circumstances exist, 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.