From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

FRANCIS v. CATE

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 24, 2010
No. 2:09-cv-0640 JAM KJN P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2010)

Opinion

No. 2:09-cv-0640 JAM KJN P.

February 24, 2010


ORDER


It appears plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel in his February 16, 2010 objections. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Therefore, plaintiff's request for the appointment of counsel is denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's February 16, 2010 request for the appointment of counsel is denied.


Summaries of

FRANCIS v. CATE

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 24, 2010
No. 2:09-cv-0640 JAM KJN P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2010)
Case details for

FRANCIS v. CATE

Case Details

Full title:JOHN FRANCIS, Plaintiff, v. MATTHEW CATE, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Feb 24, 2010

Citations

No. 2:09-cv-0640 JAM KJN P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2010)