Chinsami v. Harrison

Full title: SHU CHINSAMI, Plaintiff, v. HARRISON, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: Sep 10, 2013

2:13-cv-1124 CKD P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 10, 2013)

Opinion

SHU CHINSAMI, Plaintiff, v. HARRISON, et al., Defendants. No. 2:13-cv-1124 CKD P United States District Court, E.D. California. September 10, 2013

          ORDER

          CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge.

         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 request for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 8) is denied.