Legal Opinion

(PC) Smith v. Osmon

District Court, E.D. California

Decided February 6, 2023No. 2:22-cv-01637Unknown

1Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL ROY SMITH, No. 2:22-CV-1637-WBS-DMC-P 12 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. ORDER 15 16 OSMON, et al., 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 21 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel, 22 ECF No. 12. 23 The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to 24 require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. See Mallard v. United States…

2Cases cited3 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. The CarrisoDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1928

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

Powered by the Exa API