Manago v. Williams, et al

Filing 155

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 05/06/11 ordering that plaintiff's instant motion 152 for appointment of Ollie P. Manago as "advisory counsel" herein, is denied without prejudice. The court further notes that p laintiff's remaining motions have been resolved by prior orders of this court, and should be so designated by the clerk of court. Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time within which to file a dispositive motion 151 is denied as moot ; by order filed 04/26/11 150 , the deadline for all parties to file dispositive motions was extended to 09/02/11. Plaintiff's motion for sanctions 153 is also denied as moot; the matters raised in that motion were addressed in this court's order filed 04/11/11 144 and plaintiff has been admonished to file no more discovery motions 148 . (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

STEWART MANAGO,

11

Plaintiff,

12

No. 2:07-cv-2290 LKK KJN P

vs.

13

BARD WILLIAMS, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
16

ORDER
/

Plaintiff moves for an order of this court appointing Los Angeles attorney Ollie P.

17

Manago as “advisory counsel” to plaintiff for purposes which include the following: to have

18

access to and/or possession of plaintiff’s confidential legal materials in order organize and index

19

the materials; to type, according to court-pleading standards, plaintiff’s handwritten work

20

product; to make copies and serve legal papers; to photocopy cases identified by plaintiff; to

21

locate and interview potential witnesses; and to meet with plaintiff in a confidential setting.

22

As plaintiff acknowledges, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that district

23

courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in Section 1983 cases.

24

Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional

25

circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

26

§ 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright,
1

1

900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990).
Plaintiff was previously advised that this court would consider a request for

2
3

appointment of counsel. (Dkt. No. 124 at 1 n.1, 13.) That order, filed December 6, 2010,

4

emphasized that “[i]n the present case, exceptional circumstances may exist due to the rulings

5

herein requiring limited disclosure of privileged documents for in camera review and for

6

consideration of a protective order.” (Id. at 1 n.1.) Plaintiff was reminded of this advisement

7

when the court admonished plaintiff for burdening the court with excessive filings (Dkt. No. 148

8

at 2), many of which challenged the procedures instituted by plaintiff’s place of incarceration in

9

an effort to accommodate his need to review privileged documents, including audio recordings.

10

Plaintiff’s current request for appointment of a specific attorney, to act in a very

11

limited capacity at the primary direction of plaintiff, is not the type of appointment authorized by

12

this court. While the court occasionally appoints attorneys for a limited purpose (e.g., settlement

13

or mediation), an attorney is not assigned to act in a legal-assistant capacity. Moreover, while

14

this court’s review indicates that Ollie Manago is currently a member in good standing of the

15

State Bar of California, and is admitted to practice in the United States District Court for the

16

Eastern District of California, she has neither sought appointment to this court’s Pro Bono Panel,

17

nor filed a declaration in support of plaintiff’s instant motion indicating her willingness to accept

18

appointment on behalf of plaintiff. The court emphasizes, however, that even if Ms. Manago

19

fulfilled these matters, plaintiff’s current request for appointment of “advisory counsel” falls

20

outside the parameters authorizing appointment of counsel by this court.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s instant motion (Dkt. No.

21
22

152) for appointment of Ollie P. Manago as “advisory counsel” herein, is denied without

23

prejudice.

24

The court further notes that plaintiff’s remaining motions have been resolved by

25

prior orders of this court, and should be so designated by the Clerk of Court. Plaintiff’s motion

26

for an extension of time within which to file a dispositive motion (Dkt. No. 151) is denied as
2

1

moot; by order filed April 26, 2011 (Dkt. No. 150), the deadline for all parties to file dispositive

2

motions was extended to September 2, 2011. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions (Dkt. No. 153) is

3

also denied as moot; the matters raised in that motion were addressed in this court’s order filed

4

April 11, 2011 (Dkt. No. 144), and plaintiff has been admonished to file no more discovery

5

motions (Dkt. No. 148).

6
7

SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 6, 2011

8
_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11

mana2290.mtn.appt.etc.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3