Sherman

(PC) Holmes v. Sherman

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaFebruary 17, 20231:20-cv-00737California567 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 TERREL HOLMES, Case No. 1:20-cv-00737-ADA-HBK (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’s MOTION

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

v. (Doc. No. 31) M. MUELLER, Defendant. 16 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel. (Doc. No. 31). Plaintiff, a prisoner, is proceeding pro se on his First Amended Civil Rights Complaint as screened under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. (Doc. No. 13, 16). The Court granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in this action in forma pauperis in this action. (Doc. No. 4). Plaintiff seeks appointment counsel because he is indigent and has been unable to obtain a lawyer. (Doc. No. 31). The United States Constitution does not require appointment of counsel in civil cases. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354 (1996) (explaining Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. at 817, did not create a right to appointment of counsel in civil cases). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, this court has discretionary authority…

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.