Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01045/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01045-1/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

27

28 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BOBBY JAMES WILLIAMS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

 )

v. ) 

)

WARDEN GALAZA, et al., )

 )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

1:05-CV-1045-OWW-SMS-P 

 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF MEDIATOR

(DOCUMENT #10)

Plaintiff has requested the appointment of a mediator. 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.

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

On December 5, 2005, Plaintiff field a Motion for the Appointment of a Mediator. The

Court construes this as a request for the assistance of counsel. 

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.

Case 1:05-cv-01045-OWW -SMS Document 11 Filed 02/07/06 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

27

28 2

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. 

Finally, even assuming Plaintiff’s intention was for the appointment of a true mediator, his

request is denied. Plaintiff not only fails to state why a mediator is necessary, but Defendants have

not yet made an appearance and will not until the Court orders service of the Complaint after a

determination that the case states a cognizable claim for relief on which the case can proceed. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's request for the

appointment of a mediator is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 7, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

b6edp0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01045-OWW -SMS Document 11 Filed 02/07/06 Page 2 of 2