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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ISIDRO ROMAN, 1:23-cv-00671-KES-SAB (PC)

12 Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

13 v. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND

DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMONS TO

14 PATRICT EASTON, et al, SERVE DEFENDANTS

15 Defendants. (ECF No. 20)

16 17 18 On May 17, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel and for 19 summons to serve defendants in this matter. Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to 20 appointed counsel in this action, Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the 21 court cannot require an attorney to represent plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard 22 v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 23 1814, 1816 (1989). However, in certain exceptional circumstances the court may request the 24 voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1). Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. 25 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.