(PC) Foster v. Clark
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MICHAEL FOSTER, Case No. 1:22-cv-00976-SAB (PC)
Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
v. COUNSEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE
KEN CLARK, et al., (ECF No. 26) Defendants.
14 Plaintiff Michael Foster is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s second motion for appointment of counsel, filed April 5, 2023. Plaintiff asks for appointment of counsel because he is unable to afford counsel; his imprisonment limits his ability to litigate the action; and a trial is likely to involve conflicting testimony. (ECF No. 26.) There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require any 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,…