UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 13, 2010
ALLEN LANGLEY, PLAINTIFF,
R.J. BALLASH, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW REQUEST TO AMEND COMPLAINT (ECF No. 23)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF No. 18)
Plaintiff Allen Langley ("Plaintiff") is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 8, 2010, the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion to Amend and allowed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint as he had requested. (ECF No. 22.) Plaintiff now seeks to rescind his request to amend his complaint and to proceed on his complaint as originally filed. Plaintiff's Motion to Withdraw Amended Motion [ECF No. 23] is GRANTED. The Court will proceed on Plaintiff's original complaint, filed December 28, 2009.
Plaintiff has also filed a Motion for Reconsideration asking the Court to reconsider its denial of his request to have counsel appointed to assist him. The Court has reviewed both Plaintiff's original motion and his Motion for Reconsideration and finds that neither set forth adequate facts to cause this court to seek voluntary counsel to assist Plaintiff. As Plaintiff has previously been informed, 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 District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 1816 (1989). This court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and exceptional cases; the Court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. See Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997). Even if it is assumed that Plaintiff is not well-versed in the law and that he has made serious allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This Court is faced with similar cases almost daily. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration [ECF No. 18] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.