(PC) Smith v. Gonzales

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaDecember 6, 20221:17-cv-00436California563 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 LARRY SMITH, 1:17-cv-00436-ADA-GSA-PC

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 13 v. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

14 SERGEANT J. GONZALES, et al., (ECF No. 132.)

15 Defendants.

16 17 On November 29, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel. 18 (ECF No. 132.) Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, 19 Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require an attorney 20 to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court 21 for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in 22 certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel 23 pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 24 Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, the court will seek 25 volunteer counsel only in the most serious …

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.