IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 11, 2009
CLARENCE SARGENT, PLAINTIFF,
P. STATTI, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge
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.*fn1 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 motions for the appointment of counsel will therefore be denied.
Plaintiff has also filed a motion asking for special consideration with regard to compliance with the Local Rules and copying documents because his "situation is complicated," and he is in administrative segregation. Motion, filed on June 10, 2009 (docket # 10). He also asks for appointed counsel or a paralegal to help him file and serve documents. By Order, filed on August 7, 2009 (# 22), the court determined that plaintiff's first amended complaint was appropriate for service; however, plaintiff has not as yet been found qualified to proceed in forma pauperis. If plaintiff files the appropriate documentation to support his request for in forma pauperis status pursuant to the August 7, 2009 (#22), Order, and also makes a showing that he is unable to obtain the copies he needs to serve his first amended complaint, plaintiff may submit a motion to the court specifically identifying who is denying him the requisite copies for service of his amended complaint as well as providing the precise circumstances under which he is being denied the copies. As to his additional request for appointed counsel, the court has previously stated that it has not found the requisite exceptional circumstances in this case.
On August 3, 2009 (# 20), an inmate named George Bastida, filed a separate complaint which he characterized as a "joinder" to the instant case. The gravamen of Inmate Bastida's complaint against defendant High Desert State Prison officials centers on the manner of the processing, or lack thereof, of grievances at HDSP. This filing by another individual is wholly inapposite within the instant case and will be stricken. If Inmate Bastida seeks to proceed on his allegations, he cannot piggyback on this action and must file a new and separate case.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's May 28, 2009, June 10, 2009, July 7, 2009, and July 22, 2009, motions for the appointment of counsel (docket # 3, # 7, # 10, # 11 and # 14) are denied;
2. Plaintiff's request for court assistance with regard to obtaining copies, filed on June 10, 2009 (# 10), is denied as premature and insufficiently supported; and
3. The Clerk of the Court is to strike Inmate Bastida's inapposite "joinder" and complaint, filed on August 3, 2009 (# 20), from the docket of this case; should this inmate elect to proceed on his complaint, he must file a new and separate action.