Carter v. Murphy

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denies without prejudice a state prisoner’s motion for appointment of counsel in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The court also denies without prejudice the plaintiff’s motion in limine because it is unclear whether the case will proceed to trial.

Holdings

1. A district court lacks authority to require counsel to represent an indigent prisoner in a § 1983 action, and the plaintiff did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting the court's request for voluntary representation.
2. The request to exclude evidence was denied without prejudice because it was unclear whether, or when, the matter would proceed to trial.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court should request an attorney to voluntarily represent the indigent prisoner under the exceptional-circumstances standard.
2. Whether the court should exclude specified evidence before it was determined that the case would proceed to trial.

Disposition

other