Attinello

(PC) Fairchild-Littlefield v. Attinello

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaSeptember 22, 20221:19-cv-01579California438 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GIGI FAIRCHILD-LITTLEFIELD, 1:19-cv-01579-JLT-GSA-PC

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

vs. (ECF No. 33.)

ATINELLO, et al.,

Defendants.

19 Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 2, 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, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (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. …

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.