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.

Williams v. Med. Authorization Review Comm.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


May 21, 2009

JAMES W. WILLIAMS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MED. AUTHORIZATION REVIEW COMM., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 27, 2009, plaintiff filed a motion 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.

On April 1, 2009, plaintiff filed a request for a court order allowing plaintiff to use the law library. Plaintiff does not allege that he is under a present obligation to submit documents within a time certain and thus has not demonstrated that his right of access to the courts is being impaired. The court will not issue a general order for library usage merely for the purpose of insuring the plaintiff additional library time. If plaintiff requires more time to submit documents to the court, he may file a request for an extension of time. Therefore, plaintiff's request will be denied.

On April 6, 2009, plaintiff renewed his request for a court order concerning law library access. For the reasons provided above, this request will also be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's March 27, 2009 motion for the appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 19) is denied;

2. Plaintiff's April 1, 2009 request for a court order concerning law library access (Doc. No. 20) is denied; and

3. Plaintiff's April 6, 2009 request for a court order concerning law library access (Doc. No. 21) is denied.

20090521

© 1992-2009 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.