Meadows v. Reeves

Full title: MICHANN MEADOWS, Plaintiff, v. DR. REEVES, et al Defendants.

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

Date published: Jan 27, 2015

1:11-cv-00257-JLT (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2015)

Opinion

MICHANN MEADOWS, Plaintiff, v. DR. REEVES, et al Defendants. No. 1:11-cv-00257-JLT (PC) United States District Court, Eastern District of California January 27, 2015

          ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (Doc. 68)

          Jennifer L. Thurston, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff, Michann Meadows, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.§1983. Counsel was previously located by the Court and agreed to appointment in this case for the limited purpose of drafting and filing an amended complaint; extensions of time were requested and granted. (Docs. 19, 23, 26.) The Second Amended Complaint was filed on October 1, 2012. (Doc. 28.) Subsequent to counsel's limited appointment being completed, Plaintiff has variously requested appointment of counsel, which she repeated on January 20, 2014. (Doc. 68.)

         As has been previously stated, the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to section 1915(e)(1), Rand v Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and did so when counsel was previously appointed in this case. However, as is reflected in the appointment order, counsel only agreed to be appointed for the limited purpose of drafting and filing an amended complaint and specifically requested that appointment be terminated upon that filing. Subsequent requests (by the Court and apparently by Plaintiff) of this limited purpose counsel to continue and/or be reappointed to represent Plaintiff have been declined. Other counsel have been contacted to represent Plaintiff and have similarly declined. Unfortunately, the Court has exhausted its limited resources attempting to locate counsel willing to voluntarily represent Plaintiff.

         Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525, and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). Nothing in this order is intended to limit Plaintiff from attempting to secure legal representation via her own efforts. She is in fact encouraged to do so.

         For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.