From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Peeler v. Machado

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 26, 2015
No. 2:13-cv-2429 TLN CKD P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2015)

Opinion

No. 2:13-cv-2429 TLN CKD P

03-26-2015

BRICE A. PEELER, Plaintiff, v. MACHADO, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

Plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel. 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. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's request for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 45) is denied. Dated: March 26, 2015

/s/_________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
1/peel2429.31(3)


Summaries of

Peeler v. Machado

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 26, 2015
No. 2:13-cv-2429 TLN CKD P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2015)
Case details for

Peeler v. Machado

Case Details

Full title:BRICE A. PEELER, Plaintiff, v. MACHADO, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: Mar 26, 2015

Citations

No. 2:13-cv-2429 TLN CKD P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2015)