From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Locklear v. Schwiner

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 1, 2010
No. 2:09-cv-2594 JFM (PC) (E.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2010)

Opinion

No. 2:09-cv-2594 JFM (PC).

February 1, 2010


ORDER


Plaintiff has filed a second motion for 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 still does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff's second motion for the appointment of counsel will therefore be denied.

Plaintiff's first motion was filed September 16, 2009 and denied by order filed October 15, 2009.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's December 31, 2009 motion for the appointment of counsel is denied.


Summaries of

Locklear v. Schwiner

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 1, 2010
No. 2:09-cv-2594 JFM (PC) (E.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2010)
Case details for

Locklear v. Schwiner

Case Details

Full title:CLIFFORD LOCKLEAR, Plaintiff, v. DR. SCHWINER, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: Feb 1, 2010

Citations

No. 2:09-cv-2594 JFM (PC) (E.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2010)