From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wright v. Hickman

United States District Court, E.D. California
Aug 16, 2006
No. CIV S-06-0475 MCE CMK P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2006)

Opinion

No. CIV S-06-0475 MCE CMK P.

August 16, 2006


ORDER


Plaintiff has filed a second request for 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 August 7, 2006 second request for the appointment of counsel is denied.


Summaries of

Wright v. Hickman

United States District Court, E.D. California
Aug 16, 2006
No. CIV S-06-0475 MCE CMK P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2006)
Case details for

Wright v. Hickman

Case Details

Full title:CHRISTOPHER WRIGHT, Plaintiff, v. RODERICK HICKMAN, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: Aug 16, 2006

Citations

No. CIV S-06-0475 MCE CMK P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2006)