Stephenson v. Martel et al

Filing 54

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 3/21/12 denying 52 Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Dillon, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ROBERT E. STEPHENSON, Plaintiff, 11 12 13 14 vs. M. MARTEL, et al., Defendants. ORDER / 15 16 No. CIV S-10-0238 GGH P Plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel. The United States Supreme 17 Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent 18 prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In 19 certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); 21 Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). In the present case, the court 22 does not find the required exceptional circumstances. The facts of this case are rather simple, 23 plaintiff alleges that defendants failed to protect him from another inmate. At the current time, 24 findings and recommendations are pending and counsel is not required, moreover, plaintiff has 25 ably litigated the case to this point. Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel will 26 therefore be denied. 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for the 1 2 appointment of counsel (Docket No. 52) is denied. 3 DATED: March 21, 2012 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 4 5 GGH:md 6 step0238.31 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?