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.

Andrew Ramirez v. D. Swingle

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


August 17, 2012

ANDREW RAMIREZ, PLAINTIFF,
v.
D. SWINGLE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Plaintiff has requested the 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. Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel will therefore be denied.

In addition, on August 13, 2012 plaintiff filed a motion for a forty-five day extension of time. Plaintiff appears to request an extension of time to file objections to the July 26, 2012 findings and recommendations recommending that his motion for injunctive relief be denied. The grounds of this request are that High Desert State Prison is on lockdown. While plaintiff's motion for extension of time does not directly address defendants' summary judgment motion filed July 20, 2012, the undersigned construes plaintiff's motion as seeking an extension of time to file an opposition to this motion.

Plaintiff is granted thirty days from August 13, 2012 to file his objections and opposition.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's August 13, 2012 motion for the appointment of counsel (Dkt. No.

57) is denied;

2. Plaintiff's August 13, 2012 motion for an extension of time (Dkt. No. 58) is granted; and

3. Plaintiff's objections to July 26, 2012 findings and recommendations and his opposition to defendants' summary judgment motion are due on or before September 12, 2012.

20120817

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



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.