From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kirk v. Rackley

United States District Court, E.D. California
Dec 1, 2010
No. CIV S-09-1866-FCD-CMK-P (E.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2010)

Opinion

No. CIV S-09-1866-FCD-CMK-P.

December 1, 2010


ORDER


Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff's third motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 27).

Plaintiff's prior applications have been denied. As plaintiff has previously been informed, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. See 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). See 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 at this time find the required exceptional circumstances.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's request for the appointment of counsel (Doc. 27) is denied.

DATED: December 1, 2010


Summaries of

Kirk v. Rackley

United States District Court, E.D. California
Dec 1, 2010
No. CIV S-09-1866-FCD-CMK-P (E.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2010)
Case details for

Kirk v. Rackley

Case Details

Full title:LARRY W. KIRK, Plaintiff, v. R.J. RACKLEY, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: Dec 1, 2010

Citations

No. CIV S-09-1866-FCD-CMK-P (E.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2010)