IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 4, 2012
LACY MITCHELL, PLAINTIFF,
WILLIAMS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
Plaintiff has filed a document with the court styled as, "Plaintiff's Objections To The Magistrate Judge's Findings And Recommendations; Request For 45 Day Extension; Motion For Appointment Of Counsel." (Doc. No. 29.) Therein, plaintiff indicates that he has found an "inmate-jailhouse lawyer who is willing to prepare a more effective response that will show why plaintiff's claims should not be dismissed" and plaintiff requests 45 days to file his "opposition" to the court's findings and recommendations issued on February 8, 2012. (Doc. No. 29 at 2.) In addition, plaintiff seeks the appointment of the "jailhouse lawyer" in question to represent him. (Id.)
On March 26, 2012, the assigned District Judge adopted the undersigned's February 8, 2012 findings and recommendation after conducting a de novo review of the case and taking into consideration plaintiff's objections filed on February 24, 2012. Therefore, plaintiff's request for an extension of time will be denied as untimely.
Plaintiff request for the appointment of his "jailhouse lawyer" as his counsel will also be denied. A non-lawyer may appear pro se only on behalf of himself; he cannot represent the interests of others. C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975) (a non-lawyer prisoner may not represent fellow inmates in a class action). Therefore, the court will not appoint another inmate to act as plaintiff's legal representative.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's March 29, 2012 request for an extension of time to file further objections to the findings and recommendations filed on February 8, 2012, and for the appointment of a "jailhouse lawyer" to represent plaintiff (Doc. No. 29), is denied.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.