Brownnen
(PC) Lowery v. Brownnen
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JOSHUA PHILLIP LOWERY, Case No. 2 :23-cv-01566-JDP (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER v. DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR
CLARIFICATION AND FOR THE
BROWNNEN, et al., APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL Defendants. ECF Nos. 26, 28, 31, & 33 16
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…