Kha v. Post, et al

Filing 16

ORDER Denying 7 13 Motions to Appoint Counsel; ORDER Finding as moot 15 Motion to Proceed IFP signed by District Judge William Haskell Alsup on 09/11/2009. (Flores, E)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 DO KHA, Plaintiff, v. DONNA POST, MELISSA FRITZ, BARBARA CAMPANELLA, KRISTEN DICKERSON, CHRIS, PETER ARRIZU, JOSE JIMENEZ, ROGER FINCH, Defendants. / No. C 08-00543 WHA (PR) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

Plaintiff Do Kha has filed several motions for counsel. There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case. Lassiter v. Dep't of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). 28 U.S.C. 1915 confers on a district court only the power to "request" that counsel represent a litigant who is proceeding in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(1). This does not give the courts the power to make "coercive appointments of counsel." Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989). In short, the Court only has the power to ask pro bono counsel to represent plaintiff, not the power to "appoint" counsel. Plaintiff is capable of presenting his claims effectively, and the issues, at least at this stage, are not complex. The motions for appointment of counsel are DENIED.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Plaintiff has also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. An earlier motion to proceed in forma pauperis was previously granted. Therefore, this motion is MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 11, 2009.

WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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