Opinion
Case No. 2:07-cv-00934-PMP-GWF.
March 17, 2009
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel for Federal Habeas Corpus Proceeding (Dkt. #46), filed on February 20, 2009.
Plaintiff has not filed a Habeas Corpus Petition in the Eastern District of California. In the present case, Plaintiff has raised civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 related to allegations of inadequate medical care being provided at the facility in which Plaintiff is housed. Plaintiff's request for monetary relief as a result of what he deems to be improper medical care does not constitute a habeas corpus petition. Therefore, as no habeas corpus matter has been filed, the Court will deny Plaintiff's request for Habeas Corpus counsel.
To the extent that Plaintiff is applying for counsel to be appointed to assist the litigation of Plaintiff's § 1983 claims, the Court will again deny Plaintiff's request. As the Court previously advised Plaintiff (Dkts. # 14, 29 and 38) in response to his four prior requests for counsel (Dkts. #13, 28, 36 and 37), 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 exceptional circumstances, the court may request counsel voluntarily to represent such a plaintiff. 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). The Court again finds that there are no exceptional circumstances in this case. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Request for Appointment of Counsel (Dkt. #46) is denied.