Barry v. Felker et al

Filing 68

ORDER ; Denying 64 Motion to Appoint Counsel signed by District Judge Philip M. Pro on 4/8/2013. (Kusamura, W)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6

***
7
8

TIMOTHY DEMOND BARRY,
Plaintiff,

9
10

v.

11

T. FELKER, et al.,

12

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:08-cv-01722-PMP-GWF
ORDER

13
14

Before the Court is Plaintiff Timothy Demond Barry’s Motion for Appointment of

15

Counsel (Doc. #64), filed on March 25, 2013. Defendants J. Bishop and N. Albonico filed

16

a Response (Doc. #65) on March 27, 2013.

17

The decision to appoint counsel in civil proceedings in forma pauperis is within “the

18

sound discretion of the trial court and is granted only in exceptional circumstances.”

19

Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004). Here, the Court

20

finds no such exceptional circumstances to warrant the appointment of counsel.

21
22

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff Timothy Demond Barry’s Motion
for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. #64) is hereby DENIED.

23
24
25
26

DATED: April 8, 2013
_______________________________
PHILIP M. PRO
United States District Judge