Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

McDougald v. Modesto Police Dep't

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


November 15, 2008

CARIS LYNN MCDOUGALD, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MODESTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE STATUS REPORT ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR COUNSEL

(Document 26)

Plaintiff Caris Lynn McDougald ("Plaintiff") is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action.

On November 6, 2008, the Court held a Scheduling Conference. Defendants appeared through counsel, James Wilson. Plaintiff did not appear or otherwise contact the Court.

On November 10, 2008, the Court received a letter from Plaintiff in which he indicated that he was arrested on November 5, 2008, and is now facing a parole violation. He requests an "extension" of one year. While the Court will not hold a case in abeyance for such an extended period, the Court will allow Plaintiff some time to assess his circumstances. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to file a status report within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this order. The status report should include Plaintiff's intentions in prosecuting this action.

Plaintiff is also reminded of the requirement previously set forth in the Informational Order:

A pro se plaintiff has an affirmative duty to keep the court and opposing parties apprised of his or her address. If a plaintiff moves and fails to file a notice of change of address, service of court orders at plaintiff's prior address shall constitute effective notice. See Local Rule 83-182(f). If mail directed to plaintiff is returned by the U.S. Postal Service as undeliverable, the court will not attempt to remail it. If the address is not updated within sixty days of the mail being returned, the action will be dismissed for failure to prosecute. See Local Rule 83-183(b).

Insofar as Plaintiff requests the appointment of an attorney, his request is DENIED. A district court has the discretion to appoint counsel to represent a person unable to afford representation under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). However, the court may only do so under "exceptional circumstances." Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.1991). Exceptional circumstances do not exist in this action and Plaintiff's motion must therefore be denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20081115

© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.