From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Birdwell v. Cates

United States District Court, E.D. California
Aug 23, 2011
No. CIV S-10-0719 KJM GGH P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2011)

Opinion

No. CIV S-10-0719 KJM GGH P.

August 23, 2011


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). Plaintiff alleges that many defendants interfered with plaintiff's ability to practice his religion, Odinism. This case does not contain complex matters of law, rather plaintiff states that he lacks sufficient training to properly conduct discovery and proceed to trial. Plaintiff's lack of legal expertise is insufficient to warrant the appointment of counsel. As 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 August 4, 2011 motion for the appointment of counsel (Docket No. 65) is denied.

DATED: August 22, 2011


Summaries of

Birdwell v. Cates

United States District Court, E.D. California
Aug 23, 2011
No. CIV S-10-0719 KJM GGH P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2011)
Case details for

Birdwell v. Cates

Case Details

Full title:BILLY PAUL BIRDWELL, II., Plaintiff, v. M. CATES, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: Aug 23, 2011

Citations

No. CIV S-10-0719 KJM GGH P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2011)