Evans v. Sisto et al

Filing 80

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 9/14/10 denying without prejudice 78 Motion for Extension of time ; denying 78 Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Dillon, M)

(PC) Evans v. Sisto et al

Doc. 80

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 Plaintiff's last motion for appointment of counsel was filed on July 16, 2010 and denied by order filed August 6, 2010. 1
Dockets.Justia.com
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JAMES EVANS, Plaintiff, vs. FELKER, et al., Defendants. / Plaintiff has again moved for the appointment of counsel.1 As the court has previously noted, 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 motion for the appointment of counsel will therefore be denied. ///// ORDER No. 2:09-cv-0292 WBS JFM (PC)

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
12/mp evan0292.31(3)

Plaintiff also moves for a thirty day extension of time to "file" discovery. It is unclear from the motion whether plaintiff seeks an extension of time to respond to an outstanding discovery request, or to serve a discovery request on defendants, or to take some other action with respect to discovery. Accordingly, the motion will be denied without prejudice. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's September 3, 2010 motion for the appointment of counsel is denied; and 2. Plaintiff's September 3, 2010 motion for extension of time is denied without prejudice. DATED: September 14, 2010..

2