Zamaro v. Moonga et al

Filing 153

ORDER Denying 148 Motion to Appoint Counsel on Appeal, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 04/10/14. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 12 13 1:09-cv-00580-BAM (PC) SAMMY ZAMARO, Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL ON APPEAL v. (ECF No. 148) G. MOONGA, et al, Defendant. 14 15 This action is currently on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 16 Circuit. On March 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the appointment of counsel on 17 appeal. Plaintiff’s motion is best directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 18 Circuit. However, as Plaintiff filed his motion in this court, this court will address it. 19 The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require 20 counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States District Court 21 for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S. Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). In certain 22 exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 23 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997). Without a 24 reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, this court will seek volunteer counsel 25 only in the most serious and exceptional cases. 26 27 28 In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Therefore, plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel shall be denied. 1 1 2 Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel on appeal, filed March 17, 2014, is HEREBY DENIED. 3 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Barbara April 10, 2014 _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A. McAuliffe 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?