From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Nelson v. Murphy

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 7, 2013
No. 2:09-cv-0308 KJM CKD P (E.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2013)

Opinion

No. 2:09-cv-0308 KJM CKD P

01-07-2013

PATRICK OTIS NELSON, Plaintiff, v. MURPHY, Defendant.


ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, has requested the appointment of counsel to represent him at the settlement conference scheduled for February 7, 2013 at 1:00 p.m. before the Honorable Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas. Defendant opposes the motion.

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. Plaintiff's request for the appointment of counsel will therefore be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's emergency motion to appoint counsel (Dkt. No. 70) is DENIED.

_______________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Nelson v. Murphy

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 7, 2013
No. 2:09-cv-0308 KJM CKD P (E.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2013)
Case details for

Nelson v. Murphy

Case Details

Full title:PATRICK OTIS NELSON, Plaintiff, v. MURPHY, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jan 7, 2013

Citations

No. 2:09-cv-0308 KJM CKD P (E.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2013)