From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hollis v. Downing

United States District Court, E.D. California
Dec 29, 2010
No. 2:09-cv-3431 FCD KJN P (E.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2010)

Opinion

No. 2:09-cv-3431 FCD KJN P.

December 29, 2010


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). In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Therefore, plaintiff's request for the appointment of counsel is denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's December 20, 2010 request for the appointment of counsel is denied.

DATED: December 28, 2010


Summaries of

Hollis v. Downing

United States District Court, E.D. California
Dec 29, 2010
No. 2:09-cv-3431 FCD KJN P (E.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2010)
Case details for

Hollis v. Downing

Case Details

Full title:MARVIN GLENN HOLLIS, Plaintiff, v. M.S. DOWNING, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: Dec 29, 2010

Citations

No. 2:09-cv-3431 FCD KJN P (E.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2010)