Akbar-Jones v. McDonald et al
Filing
9
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 06/19/12 granting 8 Motion for Extension of time. Plaintiff is granted 30 days from the date of this order in which to file and serve his response to the court's 05/29/12 order. Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel 8 is denied. (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
HAKIM AKBAR-JONES,
11
Plaintiff,
12
13
vs.
M. MCDONALD, et al.,
14
Defendants.
15
ORDER
/
16
17
No. 2:11-cv-2627 CKD P
Plaintiff has requested an extension of time to file and serve a response to the
court’s May 29, 2012 order. Good cause appearing, this request will be granted.
18
In addition, plaintiff has 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 motion for the
25
appointment of counsel will therefore be denied.
26
/////
1
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
2
1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (Docket No. 8) is granted;
3
2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file and
4
serve his response to the court’s May 29, 2012 order; and
5
6
3. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (Docket No. 8) is denied.
Dated: June 19, 2012
7
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
8
9
10
11
12
1/mp
akba2627.36+31
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?