Vasquez

(PC) Valera v. Vasquez

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaAugust 4, 20232:23-cv-00191California403 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JOEL VALERA, No. 2:23-cv-0191-DAD-EFB (PC) Plaintiff, v. ORDER B.VASQUEZ, Defendant. 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the court are plaintiff’s July 17, 2023 motions for appointment of counsel and for discovery. ECF Nos. 18, 20. For the reasons that follow, the court will deny both motions. I. Motion for 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. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must…

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.