Prophet v. Clark et al

Filing 16

ORDER Denying 15 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; Denying 15 Motion to Stay signed by Magistrate Judge William M. Wunderlich on 2/5/2009. (Esteves, C)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 Plaintiff has filed a motion for stay pending the appointment of counsel, and a motion for appointment of counsel. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 109 S.Ct. 1814 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015 (9th Cir. 1990); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332 (9th Cir. 1990). In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Accordingly, plaintiff's request for the appointment of counsel should be denied. Plaintiff has not come forward with any grounds on which this action should be stayed. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of KEN CLARK, et al., Defendants. vs. JOSEPH D. PROPHET, Plaintiff, 1: 07 CV 1785 AWI WMW PC ORDER RE MOTION (DOC 15) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

counsel and motion for stay is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 5, 2009 mmkd34 /s/ William M. Wunderlich UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2