Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06738/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06738-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH BERNARD WIDBY, 1:04-CV-6738 AWI DLB P 

Plaintiff, 

ORDER DENYING REQUEST 

vs. FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

AND ORDER DENY MOTION FOR 

GAIL LEWIS, Warden, et al., APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(DOCUMENT No. 22)

Defendants. 

 / 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. Section 1983. 

On September 26, 2005, plaintiff filed an request for a 60-day extension of time,

and also filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. Due to the fact there are no deadlines

pending that apply to plaintiff at this time, plaintiff’s request for an extension of time is denied.

Regarding plaintiff's 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 District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S.

Case 1:04-cv-06738-AWI-DLB Document 24 Filed 10/21/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

296, 109 S.Ct. 1814 (1989).

In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary

assistance 

of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Without a reasonable method of securing and

compensating counsel, this court will seek volunteer counsel only in the most serious and

exceptional cases.

In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. 

Even if it is assumed that plaintiff is not well versed in the law and that he has made serious

allegations which, if proved, would entitle him to relief, his case is not exceptional. This court is

faced with similar cases almost daily. Therefore, plaintiff's request for the appointment of

counsel must be denied.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Plaintiff's request for an extension of counsel is DENIED.

2. Plaintiff's motion for an appointment of counsel is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 21, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3c0hj8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06738-AWI-DLB Document 24 Filed 10/21/05 Page 2 of 2