Brownnen

(PC) Lowery v. Brownnen

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMay 9, 20242:23-cv-01566California407 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSHUA PHILLIP LOWERY, Case No. 2 :23-cv-01566-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR

CLARIFICATION AND FOR THE

14 BROWNNEN, et al., APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 15 Defendants. ECF Nos. 26, 28, 31, & 33 16 17

18 Plaintiff has filed two motions for clarification seeking the name of her court-appointed 19 attorney for an upcoming settlement conference. ECF Nos. 26 & 28. The court has no record of 20 appointing counsel for plaintiff, and the docket reflects that a settlement conference has been set. 21 Plaintiff has also moved for the appointment of counsel three times. ECF Nos. 28, 31, & 22 33. Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, see Rand v. 23 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court lacks the authority to require an 24 attorney to represent plaintiff. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 25 298 (1989). The court can request…

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.