(PC) Hill v. Leikauf

E.D. California

(PC) Hill v. Leikauf

DecidedAugust 25, 2023

Docket2:23-cv-01593

StatusUnknown

This text of (PC) Hill v. Leikauf ((PC) Hill v. Leikauf) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

(PC) Hill v. Leikauf, (E.D. Cal. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL HILL, No. 2:23-cv-1593 AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 JEFF LEIKAUF, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel. ECF No. 8. In support of the request, 18 plaintiff states that he is uncertain how court proceedings work. Id. at 1. He asks if he should 19 send in documents – presumably in support of his case – now, or wait to send them in at a later 20 date. He also states that because this is the first time he has been in custody, he has little legal 21 knowledge of court proceedings. Id. 22 The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require 23 counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 24 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary 25 assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 26 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). Neither 27 plaintiff’s indigence, nor his lack of education, nor his lack of legal expertise warrant the 28 appointment of counsel. See Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990); see 1 || also Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 1984) (finding court was within its 2 || discretion when it denied appointment of counsel to sixty-year-old appellant proceeding in forma 3 || pauperis with no background in law who thoroughly presented issues in petition). Therefore, the 4 | court does not find the required exceptional circumstances in this case, and plaintiff’s request for 5 || the appointment of counsel will be denied. 6 Plaintiff is informed that the court will screen his complaint in due course in order to 7 || determine whether it may be served. At that time, if additional support for his complaint is 8 | needed, the screening order will say so. 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs request for the appointment of 10 || counsel (ECF No. 8) is DENIED. 11 | DATED: August 24, 2023 ~ 12 ththienr—Chnp—e_ ALLISON CLAIRE 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL HILL, No. 2:23-cv-1593 AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 JEFF LEIKAUF, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel. ECF No. 8. In support of the request, 18 plaintiff states that he is uncertain how court proceedings work. Id. at 1. He asks if he should 19 send in documents – presumably in support of his case – now, or wait to send them in at a later 20 date. He also states that because this is the first time he has been in custody, he has little legal 21 knowledge of court proceedings. Id. 22 The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require 23 counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 24 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary 25 assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 26 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). Neither 27 plaintiff’s indigence, nor his lack of education, nor his lack of legal expertise warrant the 28 appointment of counsel. See Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990); see 1 || also Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 1984) (finding court was within its 2 || discretion when it denied appointment of counsel to sixty-year-old appellant proceeding in forma 3 || pauperis with no background in law who thoroughly presented issues in petition). Therefore, the 4 | court does not find the required exceptional circumstances in this case, and plaintiff’s request for 5 || the appointment of counsel will be denied. 6 Plaintiff is informed that the court will screen his complaint in due course in order to 7 || determine whether it may be served. At that time, if additional support for his complaint is 8 | needed, the screening order will say so. 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs request for the appointment of 10 || counsel (ECF No. 8) is DENIED. 11 | DATED: August 24, 2023 ~ 12 ththienr—Chnp—e_ ALLISON CLAIRE 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(PC) Hill v. Leikauf, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pc-hill-v-leikauf-caed-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack