Raghvendra Singh v. CDCR, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denies without prejudice Raghvendra Singh’s motion for appointment of counsel in his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against CDCR and others. The court concludes that Singh has not demonstrated exceptional circumstances warranting voluntary appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).

Holdings

1. A district court lacks authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to require counsel to represent an indigent prisoner in a § 1983 case, although it may request voluntary representation in exceptional circumstances.
2. Plaintiff failed to meet his burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel at that time.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court should appoint counsel for a former state prisoner proceeding pro se in a § 1983 action.
2. Whether plaintiff demonstrated exceptional circumstances based on the likelihood of success on the merits and his ability to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues.

Disposition

other