IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
October 9, 2009
MIKE L. PARMENTER, PLAINTIFF,
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Craig M. Kellison United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is Plaintiff's second request for an extension of time and for appointment of counsel (Doc. 19).
Plaintiff is requesting the court grant him an extension of time, indicating he needs his August 24, 2009 deadline extended in order to allow him to send proof of his in forma pauperis status. However, Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis on August 6, 2009. There is currently no outstanding deadline requiring a response from Plaintiff. His complaint is submitted for the court to screen pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Therefore, there is no action required by Plaintiff, and no extension of time is necessary.
Plaintiff is also requesting appointment of counsel for the second time. As the court stated before, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. See 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). See 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 at this time find the required exceptional circumstances.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's request for an extension of time and appointment of counsel (Doc. 19) is denied.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.