Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05626/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05626-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DALE OWEN DUSTIN, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

 v. )

 )

EDWARD S. ALAMEIDA, JR., )

 )

 )

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

1:03 5626 AWI LJO P 

 

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF 

TIME AND DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

(DOCUMENT #28)

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On

May 4, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion to extend time to file an amended complaint. Good cause having

been presented to the court, plaintiff's request for an extension of time shall be granted.

Within plaintiff's motion for an extension of time, plaintiff has again requested the appointment

of counsel, which was denied in the court's order filed March 31, 2005. The same rules apply in

plaintiff's instant request for appointment of counsel and therefore plaintiff's request must be denied.

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).

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 1:03-cv-05626-AWI-LJO Document 29 Filed 06/13/05 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

27

28

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 is granted thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order in which to file his

amended complaint; and

2. Plaintiff's request for the appointment of counsel is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 10, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

i0d3h8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05626-AWI-LJO Document 29 Filed 06/13/05 Page 2 of 2