From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Martin v. Pliler

United States District Court, E.D. California
Nov 5, 2008
No. 2:03-cv-0466 GEB JFM (PC) (E.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2008)

Opinion

No. 2:03-cv-0466 GEB JFM (PC).

November 5, 2008


ORDER


Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 19, 2008, judgment was entered for defendant following a jury verdict. On October 8, 2008, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. Plaintiff has included a request for appointment of counsel in his notice of appeal.

he 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, this court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff's request for the appointment of counsel will therefore be denied without prejudice to its renewal, as appropriate, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's October 8, 2008 request for the appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice; and

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.


Summaries of

Martin v. Pliler

United States District Court, E.D. California
Nov 5, 2008
No. 2:03-cv-0466 GEB JFM (PC) (E.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2008)
Case details for

Martin v. Pliler

Case Details

Full title:STEVEN A. MARTIN, Plaintiff, v. CHERYL K. PLILER, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: Nov 5, 2008

Citations

No. 2:03-cv-0466 GEB JFM (PC) (E.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2008)