From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Thao v. Dickinson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Feb 8, 2012
No. CIV S-11-2235 GGH P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2012)

Opinion

No. CIV S-11-2235 GGH P

02-08-2012

LEE THAO, Plaintiff, v. KATHLEEN DICKINSON, Defendant.


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, because the issues presented by the complaint are not complex, and plaintiff's lack of legal training or expertise are not exceptional. While plaintiff claims that he "is unable to obtain crucial evidence under discovery that only an attorney can obtain through cooperation," plaintiff is advised that he is entitled to discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel will therefore be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's December 20, 2011 motion for the appointment of counsel (Docket No. 12) is denied.

Gregory G. Hollows

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Thao v. Dickinson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Feb 8, 2012
No. CIV S-11-2235 GGH P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2012)
Case details for

Thao v. Dickinson

Case Details

Full title:LEE THAO, Plaintiff, v. KATHLEEN DICKINSON, Defendant.

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

Date published: Feb 8, 2012

Citations

No. CIV S-11-2235 GGH P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2012)