From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

O'Keefe v. Cate

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 24, 2012
No. 2:11-cv-2659 KJM KJN P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 24, 2012)

Opinion

No. 2:11-cv-2659 KJM KJN P

07-24-2012

TIMOTHY O'KEEFE, Plaintiff, v. MATTHEW CATE, et al., Defendants.


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 July 19, 2012 motion for the appointment of counsel (Docket No. 51) is denied.

____________________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
okee2659.31.kjn


Summaries of

O'Keefe v. Cate

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 24, 2012
No. 2:11-cv-2659 KJM KJN P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 24, 2012)
Case details for

O'Keefe v. Cate

Case Details

Full title:TIMOTHY O'KEEFE, Plaintiff, v. MATTHEW CATE, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jul 24, 2012

Citations

No. 2:11-cv-2659 KJM KJN P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 24, 2012)