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.

Vaught v. Miranda

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


October 22, 2010

ELBERT LEE VAUGHT, PLAINTIFF,
v.
B. MIRANDA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has requested 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). Circumstances common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of counsel. Upon review of plaintiff's case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances.

Plaintiff also requests an order directing the prison law library staff to provide him with three copies of any legal document he may file with the court in the future. Plaintiff contends that the law library staff will provide him with only two copies of documents, one for the court and one for the Attorney General's Office. The court will deny plaintiff's motion. The court notes that plaintiff was recently provided sufficient copies of his amended complaint for service on defendants. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the prison law library staff have interfered with the prosecution of this action. Furthermore, to the extent that plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, he seeks such relief with respect to individuals who are not named as defendants in this action. This court is unable to issue an order against individuals who are not parties to a suit pending before it. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's October 18, 2010 motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 16) is denied; and

2. Plaintiff's October 18, 2010 motion for a court order directing that he be provided three copies of all documents he seeks to file with the court (Doc. No. 17) is denied.

20101022

© 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.