(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 FOURTH
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
v. COUNSEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE
KEN CLARK, et al., (ECF No. 45) 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 fourth motion for appointment of counsel, filed July 10, 2023. Plaintiff asks for appointment of counsel because he is unable to afford counsel; his imprisonment limits his ability to litigate the action; he has limited access to the library; a trial is likely to involve conflicting testimony; and a he has been unable to procure counsel on his own. (ECF No. 45.) 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. §…