UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 27, 2012
MIKE PALOMBO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COUNSELAND CLARIFYING DEPOSITION NOTICE (Doc. 53)
Plaintiff Richard Jackson, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 23, 2010. On June 12, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting the appointment of counsel to represent him during his deposition, should Defendants notice a deposition, and expressing confusion over the discovery and scheduling order as it relates to depositions.
Defendants have the right to depose Plaintiff in this action, which entails questioning Plaintiff under oath, and they may depose him at any time during the discovery phase so long as they serve him with a written notice at least fourteen days in advance. The Court cannot appoint counsel to represent Plaintiff during his deposition, as there are no exceptional circumstances which merit the appointment of counsel. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981).
Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.