Moore v. Richmond Police Department et al

Filing 194

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on April 22, 2010. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/22/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY B. MOORE, Plaintiff, v. OFFICER S. ZEPPA, et al., Defendants /

No. C-04-1749 MMC ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

United States District Court

Before the Court is plaintiff Gary B. Moore's "Motion for a New Trial and Motion for Appointment of Counsel," filed April 13, 2010. To the extent the motion seeks an order granting a new trial, the Court, by separate order filed concurrently herewith, has set a briefing schedule thereon, and, accordingly, does not consider the motion herein. To the extent the motion seeks an order appointing counsel, the Court hereby DENIES the motion, for the reason plaintiff has failed to show "exceptional circumstances" exist to warrant the Court's conducting a search for volunteer counsel willing to accept an appointment for purposes of representing plaintiff on his motion for a new trial.1 See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that although litigants have

The only matter pending before the Court is plaintiff's motion for a new trial.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

"no right to counsel in civil actions," district court "may under `exceptional circumstances' appoint counsel for indigent civil litigants"). IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 22, 2010

MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge

2