Uddin

(PC) Davis v. Uddin

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaFebruary 17, 20232:22-cv-00864California457 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 MAURICE DARONTE DAVIS, No. 2:22-cv-0864 DB P Plaintiff, v. ORDER MESKATH UDDIN, Defendants. 15 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that defendant violated his Eighth Amendment rights. Presently before the court is plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 20.) In support of his motion, plaintiff argues that he has not legal experience and “will need help with legal and complex procedures, legal or mixed legal and factual questions.” (ECF No. 20 at 2.) He also argues he is a participant in the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s mental health program, he will need expert assistance in proving his claims, and he does not have the funds to hire an investigator. (Id.) The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent…

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.