Culler v. California Department of Corrections et al

Filing 14

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COUNSEL re 12 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Jerryal J. Culler, Sr. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 12/4/08. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/4/2008)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 JERRYAL J. CULLER, SR., Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; SOLEDAD STATE PRISON; SOLEDAD MEDICAL DEPARTMENT; DR. J. CHUDY, CMO; DR. T. FRIEDERICH; DR. GELWEL; DR. N. LOCUS; DR. M. DICUS; DR. D. PHAN; and LYNN MINMOCK, RN, Defendants. / No. C 08-1694 WHA (PR) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR OF COUNSEL IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 This is a civil rights case filed pro se by a state prisoner. He has filed a motion for "appointment" of counsel. There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case. Lassiter v. Dep't of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). 28 U.S.C. 1915 confers on a district court only the power to "request" that counsel represent a litigant who is proceeding in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(1). This does not give the courts the power to make "coercive appointments of counsel." Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 310 (1989). In short, the Court has only the power to ask pro bono counsel to represent plaintiff, not the power to "appoint" counsel. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Plaintiff is capable of presenting his claims effectively, and the issues are not complex. The motion (document number 12 on the docket) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 4 , 2008. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 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?