IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 23, 2011
MARK ANTHONY MORENO, PLAINTIFF,
DAVID MEDINA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has filed a document stating that his prison law library lacks the legal materials listed in Gilmore v. California, 220 F.3d 987 (9th Cir. 2000), and that he needs "more time to try to find someone to help me" or to have counsel appointed. See Dckt. No. 94. However, plaintiff has filed his opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment. See Dckt. No. 95.
District courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may request counsel voluntarily to represent such a plaintiff. 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). The court finds that there are no 1 exceptional circumstances in this case.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Within 14 days of the date of this order, defendants shall respond to plaintiff's allegations that his law library does not contain adequate legal materials.
2. Plaintiff is granted 30 days from the date of this order to file an amended opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment, if he chooses. Defendants' reply brief is due 21 days after plaintiff files his amended brief or his time for doing so expires, whichever is sooner.
3. Plaintiff's August 8, 2011 request for appointment of counsel is denied.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.