Paynes v. Runnels, et al

Filing 60

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 1/16/09 ORDERING that Plaintiff's request for the appointment of counsel 59 is DENIED; and Plaintiff's request for an extension of the discovery cut-off date 58 is DENIED without prejudice. (Becknal, R)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 vs. D.L. RUNNELS, et al., Defendants. / Plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff's request for the appointment of counsel will therefore be denied. Plaintiff has also requested an extension of the discovery cut-off date because he has been placed in administrative segregation and thus deprived of the necessary materials with which to pursue discovery. 1 ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LORENZO CARL PAYNES, Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1868 MCE KJM P

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
2/md payn1868.31

The discovery cut-off date is February 27, 2009. Plaintiff does not suggest how long he will be in segregation and how long he will be deprived of materials. He has not shown good cause to extend the cut-off date. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's request for the appointment of counsel (docket no. 59) is denied; and 2. Plaintiff's request for an extension of the discovery cut-off date (docket no. 58) is denied without prejudice. DATED: January 16, 2009.

2