Legal Opinion

(PC) Sekona v. Custino

District Court, E.D. California

Decided December 5, 2024No. 2:16-cv-00517Unknown

1Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ETUATE SEKONA, No. 2:16-CV-0517-TLN-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 F. CUSTINO, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s renewed motion for the appointment of 19 counsel, ECF No. 231. 20 The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to 21 require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. See Mallard v. United States Dist.…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court for Southern Dist. of IowaSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  2. David Poe Wood v. Vernon G. Housewright, George SumnerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
  3. Frederick C. Wilborn v. Antonio Escalderon and Ruth RushenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
  4. Vernon C. Weygandt v. Donald Look, Superintendent, and the Attorney General for the State of WashingtonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1983
  5. Sammy Lee Terrell v. R.D. Brewer, Warden Jon Morales Christopher C. PhillipsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1991

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API