Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Patrick Otis Nelson v. Murphy

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


July 19, 2012

PATRICK OTIS NELSON, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MURPHY, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Carolyn K. Delaney United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Petitioner's amended pre-trial statement was due on April 30, 2012 after petitioner received two extensions of time to file the amended pre-trial statement.*fn1 After that April 30, 2012 cutoff date, petitioner was transferred to another prison. Subsequently, on June 7, 2012, petitioner filed a notice of a change of address as well as a request for a thirty-day extension of time to file his amended pre-trial statement. (See Dkt. No. 62.) While petitioner's request for an extension of time to file an amended pre-trial statement was filed a month after the April 30, 2012 cutoff date, good cause appearing, his request for an additional thirty days to file the amended pre-trial statement will be granted. However, plaintiff is notified that any further requests for extensions of time to file an amended pre-trial statement are discouraged and may be denied as plaintiff has now been given six months to file his amended pre-trial statement.

Plaintiff has also filed a motion requesting the appointment of counsel. (See Dkt. No. 63.) 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. Therefore, the motion will be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's request for an extension of time (Dkt. No. 62.) is GRANTED;

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file an amended pre-trial statement; and

3. Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel (Dkt. No. 63.) is DENIED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.