Spohn v. Trinity County District Attorney's Office et al

Filing 12

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 6/18/2012 DENYING plaintiff's 11 motion for appointment of counsel. (Yin, K)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 PAUL N. SPOHN, Plaintiff, 11 12 13 No. 2:12-cv-0565 KJM CKD P vs. TRINITY COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, et al., 14 Defendants. 16 ORDER / 15 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. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of 23 counsel will therefore be denied. 24 Plaintiff has also attached numerous documents to his letter filed June 12, 2012. 25 Plaintiff is advised that the court will consider any documents submitted along with a First 26 Amended Complaint as directed in its June 12, 2012 order. (Dkt. No. 9.) However, documents 1 1 not submitted in conjunction with an amended complaint will not be considered in the screening 2 of that complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s June 12, 2012 motion for 3 4 the appointment of counsel (Docket No. 11) is denied. 5 Dated: June 18, 2012 6 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 2 spoh0565.31(2) 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?