From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Belton v. Hooko

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Nov 23, 2015
No. 2:15-cv-1780 KJM CKD P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2015)

Opinion

No. 2:15-cv-1780 KJM CKD P

11-23-2015

WILLIE BELTON, III, Plaintiff, v. M. HOOKO, 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. Plaintiff's request for the appointment of counsel will therefore be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 12) is denied. Dated: November 23, 2015

/s/_________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2/mp; belt1780.31


Summaries of

Belton v. Hooko

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Nov 23, 2015
No. 2:15-cv-1780 KJM CKD P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2015)
Case details for

Belton v. Hooko

Case Details

Full title:WILLIE BELTON, III, Plaintiff, v. M. HOOKO, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: Nov 23, 2015

Citations

No. 2:15-cv-1780 KJM CKD P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2015)