From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

KEETON v. COX

United States District Court, E.D. California
Aug 17, 2011
No. CIV S-06-1094 GEB CKD P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2011)

Opinion

No. CIV S-06-1094 GEB CKD P.

August 17, 2011


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 motion for the appointment of counsel will therefore be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel (Docket No. 64) is denied.


Summaries of

KEETON v. COX

United States District Court, E.D. California
Aug 17, 2011
No. CIV S-06-1094 GEB CKD P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2011)
Case details for

KEETON v. COX

Case Details

Full title:TOMMY ROY KEETON, Plaintiff, v. COX, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: Aug 17, 2011

Citations

No. CIV S-06-1094 GEB CKD P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2011)