Perez v. Dill et al

Filing 67

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 66 Motion for Appointment of Counsel and Motion to Amend Scheduling Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 5/26/2011. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

SAUL BARRIOS PEREZ,

10
11
12
13

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-01794-LJO-SMS PC

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND MOTION
TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER

v.
DILL, et al.,

(ECF No. 66)
Defendants.
/

14
15

Plaintiff Saul Barrios Perez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

16

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 3, 2011, the court issued

17

a discovery and scheduling order. The order incorrectly stated the discovery cut-off date. On May

18

4, 2011, the court issued an amended order correcting the discovery cut-off date to January 3, 2012.

19

On May 23, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of counsel and requested an extension of

20

the discovery deadline. Since the scheduling order has been corrected, Plaintiff’s request to amend

21

the scheduling order is denied as moot.

22

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require

23

counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States District Court for

24

the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S. Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). In certain

25

exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28

26

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997). Without a reasonable

27

method of securing and compensating counsel, this court will seek volunteer counsel only in the

28

most serious and exceptional cases.
1

1

In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. See Rand,

2

113 F.3d at 1525. Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has

3

made serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional.

4

This court is faced with similar cases almost daily. Therefore, Plaintiff's request for the appointment

5

of counsel shall be denied.

6
7

In accordance with the above, Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel and request
to amend the scheduling order, filed May 23, 2011, is HEREBY DENIED.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
cm411

May 26, 2011

/s/ Sandra M. Snyder
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2