Mitchell v. Williams et al

Filing 43

ORDER denying 42 Motion to Appoint Counsel and medical expert signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/26/12. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

LACY MITCHELL,
Plaintiff,

11
12

vs.

13

No. 2:10-cv-01829-KJM-DAD P

WILLIAMS, et al.,
Defendants.

14

/

15

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has

16
17

ORDER

requested appointment of a medical expert on his behalf as well as the appointment of counsel.
The expenditure of public funds on behalf of an indigent litigant is proper only

18
19

when authorized by Congress. Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210 (9th Cir. 1989). The in forma

20

pauperis statute does not authorize the expenditure of public funds for medical experts. See 28

21

U.S.C. § 1915. Therefore, plaintiff’s request for the appointment of a medical expert will be

22

denied at this time. Also, for the reasons stated in the court’s November 9, 2012 order, plaintiff’s

23

request for the appointment of counsel will again be denied. Circumstances common to most

24

prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not establish

25

exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel.

26

/////
1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s November 20, 2012

1
2

motion for appointment of a medical expert and appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 42) is denied

3

at this time without prejudice.

4

DATED: November 26, 2012.

5
6
7
8
9

DAD:mp/4
mitc1829.31

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