Garcia v. Lee et al
Filing
14
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 11/10/2015 DENYING plaintiff's 11 motion for leave to comply with local rules and 12 request for the appointment of counsel. (Yin, K)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
CARLOS J. GARCIA,
11
Plaintiff,
12
13
No. 2:15-cv-1888 MCE CKD P
v.
ORDER
BONNIE LEE, et al.,
14
Defendants.
15
16
Plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel. The United States Supreme Court has
17
ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983
18
cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional
19
circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
20
1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900
21
F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). In the present case, the court does not find the required
22
exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel will therefore be
23
denied.
24
////
25
////
26
////
27
////
28
////
1
1
Plaintiff has also filed a motion stating that, due to a lockdown, he is unable to comply
2
with certain Local Rules. (ECF No. 11.) As it is not clear what relief he is seeking, this motion
3
will be denied. However, plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 13) will be accepted for
4
screening by the court.
5
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
6
1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to comply with local rules (ECF No. 11) is denied; and
7
2. Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 12) is denied.
8
Dated: November 10, 2015
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
2/kly
garc1888.31(2)
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?