Shute

(PC) Jones v. Shute

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaOctober 31, 20222:22-cv-01384California374 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 MARCELL JONES, No. 2:22-cv-1384 DB P Plaintiff, v. ORDER MICHELLE SHUTE, et al., Defendants. 15 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has requested appointment of counsel. Plaintiff states that he has an eye condition that severely limits his vision and causes him difficulty focusing. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the district court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 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). The test for exceptional circumstances requires the court to evaluate the plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits and 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.