Leikauf

(PC) Hill v. Leikauf

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaAugust 25, 20232:23-cv-01593California406 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MICHAEL HILL, No. 2:23-cv-1593 AC P Plaintiff, v. ORDER JEFF LEIKAUF, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel. ECF No. 8. In support of the request, plaintiff states that he is uncertain how court proceedings work. Id. at 1. He asks if he should send in documents – presumably in support of his case – now, or wait to send them in at a later date. He also states that because this is the first time he has been in custody, he has little legal knowledge of court proceedings. Id. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991);…

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.