Nailing v. Fosterer et al

Filing 31

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 06/15/11 denying 27 Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

XAVIER DMETRI NAILING,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. CIV S-09-2475-FCD-CMK-P

vs.

ORDER

B.D. FOSTERER, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

/

17

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to

18

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel

19

(Doc. 27). The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to

20

require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. See Mallard v. United States

21

Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may

22

request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Terrell v.

23

Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36

24

(9th Cir. 1990). In the present case, the court does not at this time find the required exceptional

25

circumstances.

26

///
1

1
2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for the
appointment of counsel (Doc.27) is denied.

3
4
5
6

DATED: June 15, 2011
______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2