From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cornish v. Harshbarger

United States District Court, E.D. California
May 26, 2011
No. CIV S-10-0230 DAD P (E.D. Cal. May. 26, 2011)

Opinion

No. CIV S-10-0230 DAD P.

May 26, 2011


ORDER


Plaintiff, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has requested 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 May 20, 2011 motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 11) is denied.

DATED: May 25, 2011.


Summaries of

Cornish v. Harshbarger

United States District Court, E.D. California
May 26, 2011
No. CIV S-10-0230 DAD P (E.D. Cal. May. 26, 2011)
Case details for

Cornish v. Harshbarger

Case Details

Full title:AMMIEL CORNISH, Plaintiff, v. OFFICER HARSHBARGER, Defendant

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

Date published: May 26, 2011

Citations

No. CIV S-10-0230 DAD P (E.D. Cal. May. 26, 2011)