IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 12, 2011
JOHN ZIOMEK, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Craig M. Kellison United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff's fourth motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 68), and motion for additional time to respond to defendants' summary judgment motion (Doc. 69).
As plaintiff has been informed, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. See 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). See 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.
Plaintiff is also requesting an extension of time to file a response to the motion for summary judgment filed by defendants. Good cause appearing therefor, the request is granted. Plaintiff may file a response within 30 days of the date of this order.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's request for the appointment of counsel (Doc. 68) is denied;
2. Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time (Doc. 69) is granted; and
3. Plaintiff may file a response to the pending motion for summary judgment within 30 days of the date of this order.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.