IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 30, 2009
DALE OWEN DUSTIN, PLAINTIFF,
R. VOGEL, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: William M. Wunderlich United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER RE MOTION
Plaintiff has filed a motion for the appointment of counsel and a motion requesting court permission to correspond with another inmate.
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 District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 109 S.Ct. 1814 (1989).
In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015 (9th Cir. 1990); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332 (9th Cir. 1990). In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances.
Accordingly, plaintiff's request for the appointment of counsel should be denied. Plaintiff also seeks authorization to correspond with another inmate. Plaintiff, as the prosecutor of this action, is responsible for preparing and filing all of the pleadings. That Plaintiff may desire assistance from another inmate does not absolve him of this responsibility. Plaintiff's opposition to the motion to dismiss is due February 12, 2009. Plaintiff has heretofore been able to respond to court deadlines. Plaintiff does not make any persuasive argument as to why he should be granted leave to correspond with another inmate.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel is denied.
2. Plaintiff's motion for leave to correspond with another inmate is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.