Chacko v. City of Sacramento

Filing 7

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 2/20/13 ORDERING that Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel 2 is DENIED; Plaintiff shall serve and file within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order his opposition or his statement of non-opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss; Plaintiff's failure to comply with this order may result in a recommendation of dismissal of this action pursuant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b); and The February 28, 2013 hearing on defendant's motion to dismiss is VACATED in light of this order. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

JESUDAS K. CHACKO,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14

vs.
CITY OF SACRAMENTO,
Defendant.

ORDER
/

15
16

No. 2: 12-cv-2881 MCE JFM (PS)

Plaintiff filed his complaint pro se on November 28, 2012 against the City of

17

Sacramento and paid the filing fee. He also filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. (See

18

Dkt. No. 2.) He states that he has contacted attorneys to represent him but that they have not

19

gotten back to him. Plaintiff is informed that federal district courts lack authority to require

20

counsel to represent indigent plaintiffs in civil cases. See Mallard v. United States Dist. Court,

21

490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). The court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel under the

22

federal in forma pauperis statute, but only under exceptional circumstances. See 28 U.S.C.

23

§ 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900

24

F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990).

25
26

In this case, plaintiff is not indigent as illustrated by his paying the filing fee.
Furthermore, the court does not find exceptional circumstances to appoint counsel. Thus, the
1

1

motion to appoint counsel will be denied.
On January 24, 2013, defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a

2
3

claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The motion was noticed for hearing

4

for February 28, 2013 before the undersigned. Local Rule 230(c) provides that opposition to the

5

motion to dismiss needs to be served not less than fourteen days prior to the noticed hearing date.

6

To date, plaintiff has not filed a response in opposition to the motion for dismiss nor filed a

7

statement of non-opposition. Local Rule 110 provides that failure to comply with the Local

8

Rules “may be grounds for imposition of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or

9

within the inherent power of the Court.”

10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

11

1. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (Dkt. No. 2.) is DENIED;

12

2. Plaintiff shall serve and file within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order

13

his opposition or his statement of non-opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss;
3. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order may result in a recommendation of

14
15

dismissal of this action pursuant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b); and
4. The February 28, 2013 hearing on defendant’s motion to dismiss is

16
17

VACATED in light of this order.

18

DATED: February 20, 2013.

19
20
21
22
23

14
chac2881.apptcounsel

24
25
26
2