Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Calloway v. Warden Corcoran State Prison

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


August 10, 2010

JAMISI JERMAINE CALLOWAY, PLAINTIFF,
v.
WARDEN CORCORAN STATE PRISON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DENYING MOTION (Doc. 37)

Plaintiff Jamisi Jermaine Calloway ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 18, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting appointment of counsel and a conference call with the judge or judges assigned to this case. (Doc. #37.)

Plaintiff's motion will be denied. Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action. Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997). The Court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). The Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel in certain exceptional circumstances pursuant to Section 1915(e)(1). See Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (to decide whether these exceptional circumstances exist, the Court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved). However, the Court finds the necessary exceptional circumstances do not exist here. Plaintiff has made no attempt to demonstrate that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim. Further, Plaintiff has been able to articulate his claims reasonably well and the legal issues in this case are not overly complex.

Plaintiff's motion also requests a conference call with the judge. Plaintiff fails to identify any purpose for the conference call. Plaintiff is advised that under the Local Rules, pre-trial issues are generally resolved by motion on the record without oral argument. Local Rule 230(l). Plaintiff's request for a conference call will be denied.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel and for a conference call is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20100810

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.