From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fields v. Ruiz

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 9, 2006
No. 1:03-CV-6364-OWW-DLB-P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2006)

Opinion

No. 1:03-CV-6364-OWW-DLB-P.

February 9, 2006


ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (DOCUMENT #98)


Plaintiff has once again requested the appointment of counsel. As plaintiff has been advised, 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 District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 109 S.Ct. 1814 (1989).

In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Without a reasonable method of securing and compensating counsel, this court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases.

In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Even if it is assumed that plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This court is faced with similar cases almost daily. Therefore, plaintiff's request for the appointment of counsel must be denied.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's request for the appointment of counsel is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Fields v. Ruiz

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 9, 2006
No. 1:03-CV-6364-OWW-DLB-P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2006)
Case details for

Fields v. Ruiz

Case Details

Full title:KEVIN E. FIELDS, Plaintiff, v. J.P. RUIZ, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: Feb 9, 2006

Citations

No. 1:03-CV-6364-OWW-DLB-P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2006)