IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 23, 2010
DANIEL TREGLIA, PLAINTIFF,
DIRECTOR OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 22, 2010, and March 1, 2010, plaintiff filed motions to compel, for sanctions and for summary judgment which are pending before the court.
On April 5, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion for a settlement conference. Defendant has not responded to the motion for a settlement conference, so defendant shall reply within 14 days and state if they wish to take part in a settlement conference. If defendant chooses not to proceed with a settlement conference, the court will address the pending motions.
On April 21, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion requesting 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. Therefore, plaintiff's request for the appointment of counsel is denied.
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendant shall reply within 14 days if they wish to participate in a settlement conference.
2. Plaintiff's April 21, 2010 request for the appointment of counsel is denied.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.