Meadows v. Reeves, et al.
Filing
36
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motions for Appointment of Counsel 34 , 35 , signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 6/2/13: Motions DENIED without prejudice. (Hellings, J)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
MICHANN MEADOWS,
10
Plaintiff,
11
v.
Case No. 1:11-cv-00257-SMS (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT
OF COUNSEL
12
DR. REEVES, et al
(ECF Nos. 34, 35)
13
Defendants.
14
15
16
Plaintiff Michann Meadows (APlaintiff@), is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
17
forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed this action
18
on February 14, 2011. (ECF No. 1.) On August 5, 2011, the Court issued a screening order,
19
dismissing Plaintiff=s Complaint, with leave to amend. (ECF No. 9.) On September 26, 2011,
20
Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint (“1st AC”) (ECF No. 14) which was screened and
21
dismissed for failure to state a claim (ECF No. 16). Judgment was subsequently entered. (ECF
22
No. 17.)
23
Upon subsequent review, the 1st AC stated at least one cognizable claim such that the
24
dismissal of the action and judgment entered against Plaintiff was vacated to prevent manifest
25
injustice. (ECF Nos. 14, 18.) Counsel was located and agreed to appointment in this case for the
26
limited purpose of drafting and filing an amended complaint; extensions of time were requested
27
and granted. (ECF Nos. 19, 23, 26.) Which was accomplished on October 1, 2012 with the
28
filing of the Second Amended Complaint (“2nd AC”). (ECF No. 28.)
1
1
On March 7, 2013, Plaintiff filed a request for the counsel who was appointed for limited
2
purposes to be allowed to continue to represent her, or that new counsel be appointed to represent
3
her. (ECF No. 34.) Plaintiff repeated a request for appointment of counsel on April 3, 2013.
4
(ECF No. 35.)
The Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1),
5
6
Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525, and did so when counsel was previously appointed in this case.
7
However, as is reflected in the appointment order, counsel only agreed to be appointed for the
8
limited purpose of drafting and filing an amended complaint and specifically requested that
9
appointment be terminated upon that filing. Subsequent requests (by the Court and apparently by
10
Plaintiff) of this limited purpose counsel to continue and/or be reappointed to represent Plaintiff
11
have been declined. Other counsel have been contacted to represent Plaintiff and have similarly
12
declined. Unfortunately, the Court has exhausted its limited resources attempting to locate
13
counsel willing to voluntarily represent Plaintiff.
Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand v.
14
15
Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the Court cannot require an attorney to
16
represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for
17
the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). Nothing in this
18
order is intended to limit Plaintiff from attempting to secure legal representation via her own
19
efforts. She is in fact encouraged to do so.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motions for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY
20
21
DENIED, without prejudice.
22
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
Dated:
25
June 2, 2013
/s/ Sandra M. Snyder
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:
26
icido34h
27
28
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?