Archie

(PC) Epps v. Archie

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJuly 12, 20232:23-cv-00135California1,648 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ROBERT EPPS, No. 2:23-cv-00135-DAD-EFB (PC) Plaintiff, v. ORDER ARCHIE, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is confined to a state hospital and proceeds without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition to filing a complaint (ECF No. 1) and an amended complaint (ECF No. 11), plaintiff has filed two motions for appointment of counsel (ECF Nos. 6 & 10) and an “attachment to amended complaint” (ECF No. 12). Requests for Appointment of Counsel District courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may request an attorney to voluntarily to represent such a plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. 26 1 Findings and Recommendations were issued on February 16, 2023…

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.