IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 25, 2010
WILLIAM THOMAS COATS, PLAINTIFF,
CARLOS CABRERRA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff's pretrial statement is due on April 9, 2010. The jury trial is set for June 21, 2010.
On March 17, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion for 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 March 17, 2010, plaintiff also filed a motion for extension of time to file his pretrial statement. Plaintiff alleges that he was interviewed by attorney William Schmidt who may agree to represent him at the trial if the court is willing to appoint him. As discussed above, although the court does not find that the required exceptional circumstances exist in this case for appointment of counsel from the panel, if Mr. Schmidt wants to represent plaintiff the court will appoint him. In the mean time, plaintiff must still file his pretrial statement by April 9, 2010. Accordingly, the motion for extension of time is denied.
On March 17, 2010, plaintiff also filed a motion for further discovery. Discovery is closed. Plaintiff has not shown good cause to reopen discovery.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (no. 99) is denied;
2. Plaintiff's motion for extension of time (no. 100) is denied;
3. Plaintiff's motion for further discovery (no. 101) is denied.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.