Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01430/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01430-8/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

DARREL L. SMITH, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1430 MCE KJM P

vs.

SCOTT KERNAN, et al., ORDER AND

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prison inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 18, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion for the appointment of counsel

and a request for an order directing his transfer to a different institution. 

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.

/////

Case 2:05-cv-01430-MCE -KJM Document 33 Filed 02/07/07 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

Plaintiff’s request for an order directing his transfer is, in essence, a request for

injunctive relief. However, the only defendant remaining in this action is L. Johnson-Dovey, the

appeals coordinator; there is no suggestion that Johnson-Dovey is the person who would comply

with any order of this court directing plaintiff’s transfer. This court is unable to issue an order

against individuals who are not parties to a suit pending before it. See Zenith Radio Corp. v.

Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969). 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s January 18, 2007 motion for the

appointment of counsel is denied. 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s January 18, 2007 request for a

transfer be denied. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: February 6, 2007. 

2

smit1430.31+56

Case 2:05-cv-01430-MCE -KJM Document 33 Filed 02/07/07 Page 2 of 2