Eaton

(PC) Roman v. Eaton

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMay 20, 20241:23-cv-00671California680 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ISIDRO ROMAN, 1:23-cv-00671-KES-SAB (PC)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

v. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND

DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMONS TO

PATRICT EASTON, et al, SERVE DEFENDANTS

Defendants. (ECF No. 20)

16 17 On May 17, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel and for summons to serve defendants in this matter. 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 an 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, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. Without a reasonable method of securing and…

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.