IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 14, 2011
ARMSTER HAMPTON, PLAINTIFF,
P. SAHOTA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: John A. Mendez United States District Judge
On March 26, 2009, the Magistrate Judge issued an order denying plaintiff's motion for counsel. On December 2, 2011, plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration of that order. Local Rule 303(b), states "rulings by Magistrate Judges shall be final if no reconsideration thereof is sought from the Court within fourteen days . . . from the date of service of the ruling on the parties. . ." E.D. Local Rule 303(b). Plaintiff's request for reconsideration of the magistrate judge's order of March 26, 2009, is therefore untimely.
To the extent plaintiff's motion for reconsideration can be construed as a renewed motion for 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). In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Therefore, plaintiff's request for the appointment of counsel is denied.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's December 2, 2011 request for reconsideration and renewed request for appointment of counsel (Dkt. No. 86) is denied.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.