Walker v. Whitten et al

Filing 85

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 12/15/11 ORDERING that 82 Motion to Appoint Counsel is DENIED; 84 Motion for Extension of time is GRANTED; Plaintiff is granted 30 days from the date of this order in which to file and serve his opposition to defendants motion for summary judgment. (Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

JEFFREY E. WALKER,
Plaintiff,

11
vs.

12
13

A. H. WHITTEN, et al.,
Defendants.

14

ORDER
/

15

Plaintiff has requested an extension of time to file an opposition to defendants’

16
17

No. CIV S-09-0642 WBS CKD P

motion for summary judgment. Good cause appearing, that request will be granted.

18

Plaintiff has also requested the appointment of counsel. The United States

19

Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent

20

indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298

21

(1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of

22

counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.

23

1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). In the present case, the

24

court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff’s request for the

25

appointment of counsel will therefore be denied.

26

/////
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1. Plaintiff’s December 12, 2011 motion for an extension of time is granted;

3

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file and

4

serve his opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
3. Plaintiff’s December 12, 2011 request for the appointment of counsel is

5
6
7

denied.1
Dated: December 15, 2011

8

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
1/kly

14

walk0642.31

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

1

Plaintiff filed three documents on December 12, 2011 in which plaintiff makes
representations which are confusing. It is possible, but not entirely clear, plaintiff is requesting an
extension of the August 26, 2011 discovery cutoff date to either propound more discovery requests
or file a motion to compel responses to discovery. However, plaintiff has not provided the court with
any coherent reason as to why the court should extend the deadline for discovery.
2