Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03310/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03310-3/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID EARL PARMER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-3310 FCD GGH P

vs.

J. WALKER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

At this time within this civil rights action, Findings and Recommendations are

pending (filed on April 5, 2010), recommending dismissal of this case without prejudice (for

plaintiff’s failure to respond to the Order, filed on February 16, 2010, regarding the requisite

documentation to pursue in forma pauperis status). Plaintiff had previously requested the

appointment of counsel, inappositely asking, in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 filing, for counsel to be

appointed for his petition for writ of habeas corpus. 

To the extent that the request can be construed as seeking appointment of counsel

for the instant civil rights complaint, 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

Case 2:09-cv-03310-FCD-GGH Document 11 Filed 04/14/10 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

2

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, plaintiff has failed to make the showing necessary to proceed

in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Nor has he paid the required filing fee. 28 U.S.C. §

1914(a). Therefore, the court has not yet determined whether plaintiff’s case sets forth the

required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel will

therefore be denied as premature.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s January 26, 2010 motion

for the appointment of counsel (Docket No. 7) is denied as premature.

DATED: April 14, 2010

 

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009/mp

parm3310.31

Case 2:09-cv-03310-FCD-GGH Document 11 Filed 04/14/10 Page 2 of 2