From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Howell v. Felker

United States District Court, E.D. California
Oct 24, 2008
No. CIV S-08-1995 JAM GGH P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2008)

Opinion

No. CIV S-08-1995 JAM GGH P.

October 24, 2008


ORDER


Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. He seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and has requested authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.

Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). An initial partial filing fee of $1.66 will be assessed by this order. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff's trust account and forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding month's income credited to plaintiff's prison trust account. These payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in plaintiff's account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

Plaintiff's complaint was filed with the court on August 25, 2008. The court's own records reveal that on August 4, 2008, plaintiff filed a complaint containing virtually identical allegations against the same defendants. (No. Civ. S-08-1799 LKK KJM P). Accordingly, plaintiff is ordered to show cause why the present action should not be dismissed as duplicative of CIV S-08-1799 LKK KJM P.

A court may take judicial notice of court records. See MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 500, 505 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980).

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 DATED:

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $1.66. All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court's order to the Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith.

3. Within twenty days of the date of this order plaintiff shall show cause why this action should not be dismissed as duplicative of CIV S-08-1799 LKK KJM P. Failure to respond to this order will result in a recommendation of dismissal of this action.

3. Plaintiff's August 25, 2008, motion for appointment of counsel (# 2) is denied.


Summaries of

Howell v. Felker

United States District Court, E.D. California
Oct 24, 2008
No. CIV S-08-1995 JAM GGH P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2008)
Case details for

Howell v. Felker

Case Details

Full title:GEORGE HOWELL, Plaintiff, v. T. FELKER, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: Oct 24, 2008

Citations

No. CIV S-08-1995 JAM GGH P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2008)