From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Prater v. Oliver

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 28, 2008
No. CIV S-06-1993 FCD GGH P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2008)

Opinion

No. CIV S-06-1993 FCD GGH P.

February 28, 2008


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.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's January 28, 2008 motion for the appointment of counsel [33] is denied.


Summaries of

Prater v. Oliver

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 28, 2008
No. CIV S-06-1993 FCD GGH P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2008)
Case details for

Prater v. Oliver

Case Details

Full title:CHRISTOPHER KYLE PRATER, Plaintiff, v. MTA OLIVER, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: Feb 28, 2008

Citations

No. CIV S-06-1993 FCD GGH P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2008)