(PC) Rilurcasa v. State of California
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 TOM JON RILURCASA, No. 1:20-cv-01568-JLT-SAB (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S THIRD
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
v. COUNSEL AND INTERPRETER STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., (ECF No. 61) Defendants. 16 Plaintiff 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 third motion for appointment of counsel, filed September 14, 2023. Plaintiff submits that he suffers from a learning disability and is not able to articulate his complex legal claims. Plaintiff also claims that he is need of a sign language interpreter. Plaintiff does not have a 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. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the…