(PC) Suarez v. Clark
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JOSE ALFREDO SUAREZ, No. 1:22-cv-00160-JLT-SAB (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S THIRD
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF
v. COUNSEL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE KEN CLARK, et al., (ECF Nos. 72) 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 January 24, 2024. As Plaintiff is aware, there is no 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 Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 26 …