From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

LOPEZ v. CATE

United States District Court, E.D. California
Aug 9, 2011
No. 2:11-cv-0806 MCE KJN P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2011)

Opinion

No. 2:11-cv-0806 MCE KJN P.

August 9, 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 request for the appointment of counsel will therefore be denied.

In addition, plaintiff requested an extension of time to file objections to the July 18, 2011 findings and recommendations. Good cause appearing, the request is granted.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's August 1, 2011 request for the appointment of counsel (dkt. no. 12) is denied;

2. Plaintiff's August 1, 2011 motion for an extension of time is granted; and

3. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file objections to the July 18, 2011 findings and recommendations.


Summaries of

LOPEZ v. CATE

United States District Court, E.D. California
Aug 9, 2011
No. 2:11-cv-0806 MCE KJN P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2011)
Case details for

LOPEZ v. CATE

Case Details

Full title:ANDREW R. LOPEZ, Plaintiff, v. MATTHEW CATE, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: Aug 9, 2011

Citations

No. 2:11-cv-0806 MCE KJN P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2011)