From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Quintana v. Swarthout

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 17, 2012
2: 09-cv-3221 KJM CKD P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 17, 2012)

Opinion

2: 09-cv-3221 KJM CKD P

07-17-2012

VICTOR QUINTANA, Plaintiff, v. GARY SWARTHOUT, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

Plaintiff has filed two motions requesting 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. See 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.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motions for the appointment of counsel (Dkt. Nos. 49 & 52) are DENIED.

______________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Quintana v. Swarthout

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 17, 2012
2: 09-cv-3221 KJM CKD P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 17, 2012)
Case details for

Quintana v. Swarthout

Case Details

Full title:VICTOR QUINTANA, Plaintiff, v. GARY SWARTHOUT, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: Jul 17, 2012

Citations

2: 09-cv-3221 KJM CKD P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 17, 2012)