(PC)Candler
(PC)Candler v. Ball
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 STEVEN RANAE GLEEN CANDLER, No. 1:23-cv-00459-JLT-SAB (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SIXTH
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
v. COUNSEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND
EXENDING DEADLINE TO SUBSTITUE
JOHN & JANE DOES, et al., NAMED DEFENDANT IN PLACE OF DOE
DEFENDANT
Defendants. (ECF Nos. 38, 47)
17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant 18 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s sixth motion for appointment of counsel, filed 20 December 8, 2023. 21 As Plaintiff is aware, he does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this 22 action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court cannot require any 23 attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States 24 District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain 25 exceptional circumstances the court may request…