Woods v. Carey, et al
Filing
268
ORDER denying 264 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 09/25/12. (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
EARNEST CASSELL WOODS, II.,
Plaintiff,
11
12
13
14
15
16
No. 2:04-cv-1225 LKK GGH P
vs.
TOM L. CAREY, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
/
Plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel. The United States Supreme
17
Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent
18
prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In
19
certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel
20
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991);
21
Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). In the present case, the court
22
does not find the required exceptional circumstances. See, e.g., Doc. No. 261 at 3.
23
As the docket in this indicates, plaintiff has gone to trial already against defendant
24
Cervantes, a trial in which plaintiff succeeded in prevailing on his claim. Defendant Carey had
25
been awarded summary judgment on the merits, and one claim against both defendants was
26
dismissed for failure to exhaust. The Ninth Circuit reversed on these latter claims, but solely on
1
1
account of the length of time that the Rand and Wyatt informational notices had been given prior
2
to the filing of the motions in question, i.e., they were not contemporaneously given. Docket #
3
260. These issues will now be revisited in motions accompanied with the required informational
4
notice. The bases of the merits of the previous motions have been extensively, previously briefed
5
and plaintiff is well aware of those bases. All plaintiff has to do herein is add material evidence
6
to contradict the bases, assuming there is any material evidence to add. Counsel is not necessary
7
for this task. If plaintiff’s case survives the renewed motions, the court will reconsider its denial
8
of counsel.
Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel will therefore be denied.
9
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s August 23, 2012 motion
10
11
for the appointment of counsel (Docket No. 264) is denied.
12
DATED: September 25, 2012
13
/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
14
15
GGH:rb
16
wood1225.31
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
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?