Burkhart

(PC) Browning v. Burkhart

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJune 26, 20232:21-cv-00978California3,342 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ELRADER BROWNING, III, No. 2:21-cv-0978 AC P Plaintiff, v. ORDER M. BURKHART, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff has filed a second amended complaint, ECF No. 24, and a motion for the appointment of counsel, ECF No. 28. For the reasons stated below, plaintiff will be given the option of either serving the complaint as screened herein or filing an amended complaint. In addition, plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel will be denied. I. MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL In support of plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel, he states that he is unfamiliar with the law. ECF No. 28 at 2. He contends that as a result, he may not be able to properly explain his case. Id. Plaintiff also states that he “did not graduate from school.” Id. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. …

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.