From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Johnson v. Cate

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 19, 2012
No. CIV S-11-2749 MCE CKD P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2012)

Opinion

No. CIV S-11-2749 MCE CKD P

03-19-2012

PAUL SAMUEL JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. MATTHEW CATE, et al., Defendants.


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. Plaintiff's request for the appointment of

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's request for the appointment of counsel (Docket No. 27) is denied.

___________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Johnson v. Cate

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 19, 2012
No. CIV S-11-2749 MCE CKD P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2012)
Case details for

Johnson v. Cate

Case Details

Full title:PAUL SAMUEL JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. MATTHEW CATE, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Mar 19, 2012

Citations

No. CIV S-11-2749 MCE CKD P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2012)