From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Watkins v. Singh

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Apr 2, 2013
No. 2:12-cv-1343 GEB JFM (PC) (E.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2013)

Opinion

No. 2:12-cv-1343 GEB JFM (PC)

04-02-2013

NOEL KEITH WATKINS, Plaintiff, v. VAMIL SINGH, 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. See 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). See 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 motion for the appointment of counsel will therefore be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's March 15, 2013 motion for the appointment of counsel is denied.

______________

DALE A. DROZD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Watkins v. Singh

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Apr 2, 2013
No. 2:12-cv-1343 GEB JFM (PC) (E.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2013)
Case details for

Watkins v. Singh

Case Details

Full title:NOEL KEITH WATKINS, Plaintiff, v. VAMIL SINGH, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: Apr 2, 2013

Citations

No. 2:12-cv-1343 GEB JFM (PC) (E.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2013)