Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00257/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00257-16/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

MICHANN MEADOWS, 

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. REEVES, et al 

Defendants.

Case No. 1:11-cv-00257-JLT (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT 

OF COUNSEL

(Doc. 68)

Plaintiff, Michann Meadows, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Counsel was previously located by the 

Court and agreed to appointment in this case for the limited purpose of drafting and filing an 

amended complaint; extensions of time were requested and granted. (Docs. 19, 23, 26.) The 

Second Amended Complaint was filed on October 1, 2012. (Doc. 28.) Subsequent to counsel's 

limited appointment being completed, Plaintiff has variously requested appointment of counsel, 

which she repeated on January 20, 2014. (Doc. 68.)

As has been previously stated, the Court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel 

pursuant to section 1915(e)(1), Rand v Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and did so 

when counsel was previously appointed in this case. However, as is reflected in the appointment 

order, counsel only agreed to be appointed for the limited purpose of drafting and filing an 

amended complaint and specifically requested that appointment be terminated upon that filing. 

Subsequent requests (by the Court and apparently by Plaintiff) of this limited purpose counsel to 

Case 1:11-cv-00257-JLT Document 70 Filed 01/27/15 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

continue and/or be reappointed to represent Plaintiff have been declined. Other counsel have

been contacted to represent Plaintiff and have similarly declined. Unfortunately, the Court has 

exhausted its limited resources attempting to locate counsel willing to voluntarily represent 

Plaintiff.

Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, Rand, 113 

F.3d at 1525, and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(1). Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 

296, 298 (1989). Nothing in this order is intended to limit Plaintiff from attempting to secure 

legal representation via her own efforts. She is in fact encouraged to do so. 

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel is HEREBY 

DENIED, without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 27, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00257-JLT Document 70 Filed 01/27/15 Page 2 of 2