Mallard v. United States Dist. Court for Southern Dist. of Iowa
- Decided
- May 1, 1989
- Docket
- 87-1490
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 4,814 timesSuperseded by statute (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: superseded by statute (not yet verified) · Nees v. Roberts
What later courts said
- holding that the relevant statute—28 U.S.C. § 1915—“does not 22 authorize the federal courts to make coercive appointments of counsel” — Guerrero v. SDPD Carmel Valley (2023)
- holding that 22 the relevant statute—28 U.S.C. § 1915—“does not authorize the federal courts to make 23 coercive appointments of counsel” — Benitez v. Carlos Del Toro (2023)
- holding that the relevant 18 statute—28 U.S.C. § 1915—“does not authorize the federal courts to make coercive 19 appointments of counsel” — Briceno v. Williams (2021)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
[*298] Justice Brennan delivered the opinion of the Court.
We are called upon to decide whether 28 U. S. C. § 1915(d) authorizes a federal court to require an unwilling attorney to represent an indigent litigant in a civil case. We hold that it does not.
I
Statutes cited
- 28 U.S.C. § 1915
- 42 U.S.C. § 1983
- 18 U.S.C. § 3005
- 18 U.S.C. § 3006A
- 18 U.S.C. § 3503
- 18 U.S.C. § 4109
- 25 U.S.C. § 1912
- 42 U.S.C. § 1971
- 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5
- 42 U.S.C. § 3413
And 2 more sections cited in the full opinion.
Cite this
Mallard v. United States Dist. Court for Southern Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296 (1989)Read the full opinion
Free account needed
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.