From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

MILLER v. ELAM

United States District Court, E.D. California
May 10, 2011
No. 2:11-cv-0931 KJN P (E.D. Cal. May. 10, 2011)

Opinion

No. 2:11-cv-0931 KJN P.

May 10, 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. Therefore, plaintiff's request for the appointment of counsel is denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's April 29, 2011 request for the appointment of counsel is denied.

DATED: May 9, 2011


Summaries of

MILLER v. ELAM

United States District Court, E.D. California
May 10, 2011
No. 2:11-cv-0931 KJN P (E.D. Cal. May. 10, 2011)
Case details for

MILLER v. ELAM

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT MILLER, Plaintiff, v. NATHANIAL ELAM, Defendants

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

Date published: May 10, 2011

Citations

No. 2:11-cv-0931 KJN P (E.D. Cal. May. 10, 2011)